On Point: 2. Recommitment

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30, 7/5/24, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In a big defense win, 6 justices agree that M.A.C. is entitled to relief, with four justices joining together to dismantle SCOW’s prior decision in S.L.L. with respect to notice and default judgment in Chapter 51 proceedings.

Marathon County v. N.R.P., 2023AP638, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 reversal, COA finds fault with both the circuit court’s decision to admit and rely on hearsay evidence and its failure to make the required findings.

Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.

Racine County v. P.Z., 2024AP146-FT, 5/1/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a relatively straightforward appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects P.Z.’s sufficiency challenges and affirms.

Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.

Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2023AP1359, 3/13/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal presenting a straightforward D.J.W. claim, COA affirms while also giving credence to harmless error arguments.

Portage County v. D.P.W.O., 2023AP1975, 3/7/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal challenging the use of hearsay statements contained within an examiner’s report, COA rejects D.P.W.O.’s attempt to use the plain error doctrine to prove that this unpreserved error merits reversal of the extension order.

Winnebago County v. T.S., 2023AP1267, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another 51 appeal attacking the sufficiency of the circuit court’s findings, COA rejects the County’s arguments and reverses.

Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21. 

Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30.