On Point: 2. Recommitment

Marathon County v. P.X., 2016AP1490, 4/18/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

P.X., who has longstanding diagnoses of autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and intellectual disabilities, was the subject of a Chapter 54 guardianship and a Chapter 55 protective placement, when the County sought to extend his Chapter 51 civil commitment. P.X. argues that he is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51 because he is not “capable of rehabilitation” under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. Instead, the county is using medication to “control” his behavior.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179 held that an individual is capable of rehabilitation, and thus a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51, when treatment would control the symptoms of the individual’s disorder.  If, on the other hand, treatment would control only the individual’s activity or behavior, then he is not a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51. The question is: how are courts to determine whether treatment is controlling symptoms of disorder–especially when medical experts, when describing the effects of treatment, blur the line between symptoms and behavior?

Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2016AP46-FT, 5/4/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication),petition for review granted 9/13/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 57; case activity

To commit a person involuntarily, the county must show that the person is mentally ill and dangerous. To extend the commitment, the county may prove “dangerousness” by showing that “there is a substantial likelihood, based on the subject individual’s treatment record, he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.” §51.20(1)(am).

Milwaukee County v. Kent F., 2015AP388, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Kent’s argument that, under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179, he is not a proper subject for ch. 51 commitment because he is not capable of rehabilitative treatment.

Kenosha County v. James H., 2014AP2945, 6/3/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for case activity

James was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and hospitalized many times. He appeal an order extending his involuntary commitment and argued, unsuccessfully, that the county failed to present evidence of recent acts of violence against others and insufficient evidence that he would become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

Dane County v. Thomas F.W., 2014AP2469, District 4, 4/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

To extend a ch. 51 commitment, the County must prove the subject individual is a proper subject for treatment, which means showing he or she is “capable of rehabilitation,” §§ 51.01(17) and 51.20(1)(a)1. The court of appeals rejects Thomas’s argument that the evidence in this case shows treatment will only blunt the symptoms of his mental illness, not rehabilitate him.

Dane County v. P.H., 2014AP1469, District 4, 3/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Rejecting P.H.’s claim that the experts who testified based their opinions on “dated” information, the court of appeals finds the evidence was sufficient to extend P.H.’s ch. 51 commitment.

Milwaukee County v. Aaron B., 2014AP2008-FT, 2/18/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Aaron was deemed mentally ill and committed for 2 months under Chapter 51 when he bit off his caregiver’s ear. Afterwards, the county asked to extend his commitment under §51.20(13(g). Based upon statements from Aaron’s treating psychologists, the circuit court agreed and the court of appeals affirmed.

Aaron certainly improved on medication,

Marathon County v. Zachary W., 2014AP955, District 3, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Even if the circuit court erred it provided multiple definitions of the term “drug” when instructing the jury hearing a ch. 51 commitment case.

Ozaukee County v. Laura B., 2014AP1011-FT, District 2, 8/13/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence was sufficient to justify an extension of Laura B.’s commitment and an order for involuntary medication and treatment.