On Point: e. Dangerousness

Waupaca County v. H.I.B., 2021AP2026, 4/7/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

It is uncontested that “Hazel” has done well for three commitments in a row. Yet the court of appeals has affirmed her 4th Chapter 51 recommitment  because the jury could have inferred a “substantial probability” of death or serious injury from evidence that was “only suggestive” and that “lacked details such as dates and clear descriptions of conduct.”

Taylor County Human Services v. L.E., 2021AP1292, 2/15/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court extended “Luca’s” commitment, directed that he be placed in a locked ward, and ordered involuntary medication. On appeal, Luca challenges his placement in a locked ward and the involuntary medication order. At a minimum, the court of appeals analysis of Luca’s right to refuse involuntary medication merits review by SCOW.

Outagamie County v. D.D.G., 2021AP511, District 3, 1/20/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Dana” has been under commitment since 2017. It is undisputed that she has taken her medication and has done nothing dangerous in the interim.  Yet the court of appeals affirmed her 2021 recommitment because she questions her diagnosis and her need for medication and has concerns about its health effects. The court said that if she were released, she would decline medication and decompensate. Her case highlights a tension between §51.20(1)(am) and a person’s 14th Amendment right to refuse medication. It also shows that courts continue to misapply §51.61(1)(g)4., the involuntary medication statute.

Rock County v. H.V., 2021AP1760-FT, 1/13/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal concerns a recurring problem in Chapter 51 cases: the lack of objection to damaging hearsay at the final hearing. If the appellate lawyer raises ineffective assistance of counsel in the circuit court, the case will become moot before the issue is finally resolved. Here, the appellate lawyer when straight to the court of appeals, admitted the issue was forfeited, and argued “plain error.”  The court of appeals rejected the argument based on a significant error of constitutional law.

Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2021AP1490, 12/23/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

At Waupaca County’s request, the circuit court entered recommitment and medication orders against G.T.H. Six months later, the County conceded that the circuit court had failed to make the factual findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶¶3, 40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

Ozaukee County v. J.D.A., 2021AP1148, District 2, 12/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court ordering a ch. 51 recommitment petition to make specific factual findings with reference to the relevant subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment order is based. At “Jane’s” recommitment proceeding, the circuit court cited a subdivision paragraph—specifically, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e.—but said little about the substance of the standard articulated under that subdivision paragraph and how the evidence proved the statutory elements of that standard. Thus, its findings were insufficient under D.J.W. and the recommitment order and medication order are reversed.

Portage County v. C.K.S., 2021AP1291-FT, 11/24/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court recommitted C.K.S. but apparently neglected to specify the applicable standard(s) of dangerousness. C.K.S. appealed arguing that the court violated D.J.W. and that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient. The court of appeals declined to address the D.J.W. error. Instead, it reviewed the county’s evidence of dangerousness and held it insufficient under the only standards that could apply: the 1st, 3rd, and 4th standards.

Trempealeau County DSS v. T.M.M., 2021AP100 & Trempealeau County DSS v. T.M.M., 2021AP139, District 3, 11/12/21 (one-judge opinions; both ineligible for publication); case activity: 2021AP100 & 2021AP139

The court of appeals agrees with T.M.M. (“Tiffany”) that the evidence presented at her recommitment hearing was insufficient to prove she was dangerous under one of the standards listed in § 51.20(1)(a)2. The court also rejects as moot her appeal of an order transferring her under § 51.35(1)(e) to a more restrictive placement while she was still under the original commitment order.

Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2021AP581, 10/12/21, Distract 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Before a circuit court enters an order to recommit a person under Chapter 51, it is supposed to make specific factual findings with reference to the applicable standard of dangerousness in Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(a)2.  Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court violated this rule.

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity

Issue Presented (composed by On Point)

What is the proper remedy when, in a ch. 51 recommitment proceeding, the circuit court fails to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277?