On Point blog, page 12 of 12
Ch. 51 recommitment – evidence satisfied “if treatment were withdrawn” test
Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.
¶6 As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,
Ch. 51 Recommitment – “if treatment were withdrawn” test explained and met here
Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.
¶8 Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.
Ch. 51 Recommitment – Instruction on Dangerousness, Sufficiency of Evidence
Oneida County v. Michael B., 2010AP002216-FT, District 3, 2/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Michael B.: Lora B. Cerone. SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Mental Recommitment – Instruction on Dangerousness
The following oral jury instruction didn’t impermissibly direct the jury to find dangerousness, on trial for mental recommitment: “This is a recommitment proceeding, therefore, the law requires that the requirement of a recent act,