On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Winnebago County v. C.L.S., 2022AP1155-FT, 12/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.L.S. sought reversal of his recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.e arguing that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient, and the circuit court failed to make the findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.  The court of appeals rejected both arguments. But if its description of the examiner’s testimony is accurate, C.L.S. should have, at the very least, won on insufficient evidence.

Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62; case activity

Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to  be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published decision, the court of appeals holds that these statutes protect the person’s right to be physically present. Attendance by phone or video under §§885.58 and 885.60 does not suffice.

Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2022AP1357-FT, 11/23/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.J. has schizophrenia. At his recommitment hearing, Dr. Monese testified that if treatment were withdrawn, he would become a proper subject of commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c. J.D.J. does not believe he has a mental illness, so he would stop treatment and become “violent.” Third-standard recommitments are increasingly common. This decision highlights the need for more vigorous defense strategies in these cases.

Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2022AP817, District 2, 11/16/22 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Winnebago County successfully petitioned to recommit A.P.D. under the 5th standard of dangerousness. On appeal, he argued that the county offered insufficient evidence of mental illness and of dangerousness.  Although A.P.D. lost, he raised some good points that the court of appeals sidestepped or rejected.

Sauk County v. A.D.S., 2022AP550, 11/17/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court recommitted A.D.S. based on §51.20(1)(a)2.c, which seems to be the standard du jour for ch. 51 recommitments.  Even though A.D.S. hadn’t recently behaved dangerously, the court of appeals affirmed because recommitments may be based on past evidence of dangerousness, and credible evidence indicated that if not committed he would stop taking his medication and return to his former dangerous behavior.

Portage County v. A.R.F., 2022AP1262, 11/17/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.R.F. challenges the extension of her commitment under ch. 51. She argues the circuit court failed to adequately identify and support one of the statutory dangerousness standards, as is required by Langlade Cnty. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals disagrees.

Marathon County v. T.J.M., 2022AP623, 11/8/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Trevor” appealed an order recommitting him for 12 months because (1) the circuit court orally failed to indicate a standard of dangeorusness per Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient under either the 1st or 3rd standards. He prevailed on the latter argument. The opinion is helpful to lawyers defending clients against recommitment under these standards.

Trempealeau County v. C.J., 2022AP286, 10/11/22, District 3 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity

C.J. (“Carter” in the opinion) is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was initially committed after an incident in which he drove recklessly with his girlfriend in the car, threatening to kill her and himself along with the president and vice president. As the six-month commitment neared its end, the county petitioned to extend.  It did so even though C.J. had not had further incidents or problems in his group home, was taking his medications voluntarily; recognized his mental illness, and expressed that he wished to continue medication because it was helping him a great deal. (¶¶3-8).

Sauk County v. W.B., 2021AP322, 9/9/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity

This decision should strike fear in the hearts of those who have executed a healthcare power of attorney or who hold an HPOA for a loved one. According to the court of appeals, when a court declares a person incapacitated and activates his HPOA, his agent may admit him to a nursing home. But the incapacitated person retains the power to revoke his HPOA and leave the nursing home. To prevent this result, a court must order a guardianship and protective placement for him.

Clark County v. R.F., 2022AP481, District 4, 9/1/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Too bad this decision isn’t recommended for publication.  The court of appeals reversed an order continuing a ch. 55 protective placement because the County failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of protective placement would provide the least restrictive environment consistent with R.F.’s needs.  And because the County failed to respond to R.F.’s requested remedy, the court of appeals granted it. It remanded the case with directions to order the County to transition R.F. to protective services.