On Point blog, page 16 of 16
Mental Commitment – insufficient evidence to show “proper subject for treatment”
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,
No specific diagnosis, but evidence sufficient to support recommitment and involuntary medication
Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.
Ch. 51 recommitment – evidence satisfied “if treatment were withdrawn” test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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity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extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.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Ch. 51 Recommitment – “if treatment were withdrawn” test explained and met here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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Michael B.: Lora B. Cerone.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,