On Point: a. Constitutional challenges

Waupaca v. K.E.K., 2018Ap1887, District 4, 9/26/19 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 7/24/20, affirmed, 2021 WI 9; case activity

This opinion infuses uncertainty, if not confusion, into the law governing circuit court competency to decide a Chapter 51 recommitment case and the substantive legal standard that courts are to apply at the recommitment stage.

Dane County v. N.W., 2019AP48, 8/29/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

N.W. entered a written stipulation to extend his Chapter 51 involuntary mental commitment. On appeal he argued that due process required the circuit court to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily agreed to the extension before approving it. Ironically, the court of appeals held that in Chapter 51 cases–where a person’s mental capacity to make treatment decisions is directly at issue–circuit courts have no obligation to inquire whether he knows that he is voluntarily agreeing to an involuntary commitment for treatment.

Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019WI66, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2017AP1468; 6/12/19; case activity

This 4-3 decision is alarming. Waukesha County petitioned to recommit S.L.L., a homeless person, but failed to serve her with notice of the hearing because it had no idea where she was. Since she was not served, she didn’t appear for the hearing. The circuit court entered a default recommitment and forced medication order in her absence. SCOW says that is A-Okay.

Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2018AP987, District 1, 5/14/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects D.C.B.’s constitutional and procedural challenges to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment.

Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2017AP1468, petition for review of memorandum opinion granted 8/15/18; case activity

Issues (from court of appeals opinion):

Whether the circuit court has personal jurisdiction to recommit a person under Chapter 51 when the County concedes that it has been unable to serve her with the petition for recommitment?

Whether a circuit court has authority to enter a default judgment against the subject of a Chapter 51 petition for recommitment?

Whether “examining” physician reports recommending involuntary commitment and medication prepared physicians who never actually examined the subject are sufficient to support a Chapter 51 commitment?

Waukesha County v. M.J.S., 2017AP1843, 8/1/18, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

In May On Point reported a defense win in this case.  One week later, Waukesha County moved for reconsideration. The court of appeals just granted the motion and issued this new opinion. The difference between the two is that the May opinion only addressed (and reversed) the circuit court’s involuntary medication order. The August opinion addresses (and affirms) the circuit court’s order to extend M.J.S.’s commitment, while maintaining the reversal of his involuntary medication order. The court of appeals’ reasons for affirming the extension of commitment are unsettling.

Outagamie County v. C.A., 2017AP450, District 3, 1/23/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The records for Chapter 51 cases are confidential, so we have not seen the briefs for this case. But, judging from this court of appeals opinion, it doesn’t take much beyond a mental illness diagnosis to get yourself committed under §51.20(1)(a)2e, Wisconsin’s 5th standard of dangerousness. A little unsubstantiated hearsay about your frustration with the justice system just might do the trick.

Crawford County v. E.K., 2016AP2063, 5/18/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This case presents multiple SCOW-worthy issues. One is an interesting constitutional dilemma. The County sought to extend E.K.’s commitment and involuntary medication order and, as evidence, offered threatening emails that E.K. had allegedly sent. Defense counsel objected because the emails had not been authenticated. So the County called E.K. to the stand to authenticate them. Defense counsel objected on 5th Amendment grounds. This prompted E.K. to say: “I’ll waive that. Yes, those are my emails.”

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)

The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.