On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Rock Count v. H.V., 2022AP1585-FT, 1/20/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is an appeal from a ch. 51 recommitment under the 2nd standard– dangerousness to others. H.V.’s main argument was that the circuit court erroneously relied on hearsay to find that he is dangerous when not committed. The court of appeals disagreed and further found the county’s evidence sufficient to support the commitment.

Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2022AP1207, 1/18/23, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal involves a recommitment under the 3rd standard of dangerousness. G.M.M. argued that the county presented insufficient evidence of both mental illness and dangerousness. She also argued that the circuit court failed to make the findings required under Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶59, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.  The court of appeals rejected all 3 claims.

Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP603, 1/11/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal involves an important, recurring issue. Must the circuit court conduct a colloquy to determine whether the subject of a ch. 51 commitment proceeding knowingly and voluntarily stipulates to a commitment and medication? The court of appeals holds that there is no colloquy requirement, and there shouldn’t be one. The subject of ch. 51 commitment is presumed competent. If she says she’s stipulating to a commitment and medication, then the circuit court can (1) presume she’s making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision, and (2) find her dangerous without specifying a standard of dangerousness.

Calumet County DH&HS v. T.M.S., 2022AP1563-FT, 1/11/23; District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court recommitted T.M.S. based on the 3rd and 4th standards of dangerousness. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the county’s evidence and underscored Dr. Bales’ admission that he couldn’t point to any specific information in T.M.S.’s treatment records showing that T.M.S. was currently dangerous. The court of appeals, applying only the 4th standard, affirmed.

Marathon County v. L.A.R., 2022AP1226-FT, 12/29/22, District 3 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Laura” has suffered from bipolar disorder for over 30 years. At her initial commitment hearing, one examiner testified that she met the 2nd standard of dangerousness. Another testified that she also met the 4th standard. The circuit court held that Laura satisfied only the latter standard. The court of appeals affirmed.

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.