On Point: 2. Recommitment

Winnebago County v. C.B., 2026AP1754-FT, 11/4/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case that signals an alarming watering down of the forfeiture standard, COA finds nothing improper about forcing a mentally ill Chapter 51 respondent to represent themselves at a final hearing simply because they requested a single change in counsel.

Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW refuses an invitation to retreat from previous decisions making it difficult for a Chapter 51 appeal to be moot but ultimately holds that R.D.T. is not entitled to relief as a result of the allegedly improper admission of hearsay evidence.

Winnebago County v. T.R.A., 2025AP2428, 6/24/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects T.R.A.’s reading of the statutory requirements, finds ample evidence of dangerousness, and affirms. 

Winnebago County v. E.R.B., 2025AP2522, 5/14/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders extending ERB’s commitment and authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the commitment order, and that the medication order is moot, as it previously expired.

Walworth County v. D.J.F., 2025AP2522, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order extending D.J.F.’s involuntary commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.

Jackson County v. D.C., 2025AP1838 & 2025AP1839, 4/23/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed D.C.’s commitment order and the order extending his commitment because the County did not meet its burden to establish he was dangerous.

Fond du Lac County v. S.R.H., 2025AP2727-FT, 3/18/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Seth” challenges the 2025 extension of his ch. 51 commitment, contending that Fond du Lac County failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support the conclusion that he is dangerous pursuant to either WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. or 51.20(1)(am) and that the circuit court therefore erred in entering the extension order on those grounds. COA affirms.

Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.

Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.