On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

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.

Clark County v. R.D.S., 2022AP229, District 4, 8/18/22; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Ch. 55 practitioners take note! This is one of a few Wisconsin decisions reversing the continuation of a ch. 55 protective placement due to insufficient evidence. Here, the County failed to prove that due to R.D.S.’s disability he was incapable of caring for himself and posed a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others. And because the County did not address R.D.S.’s requested remedy (an order allowing him to live with his parents), the court of appeals granted it.

Waukesha v. L.J.E., 2022AP292, 10/5/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Evans”  was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, a condition considered permanent but manageable with medication. When the County sought to commit her under the 5th standard, she argued that it failed to prove that she did not satisfy one of the “exclusions” to the 5th standard. Specifically, the 5th standard does not apply where the individual may be provided protective placement or services under ch. 55. The court of appeals rejected that argument.

Sheboygan County HSD v. P.W.S., 2022AP426, District 2, 9/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this fact-intensive decision (¶¶2-17), the court of appeals rejects P.W.S.’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that there was a substantial probability he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c.

Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP606-FT, 9/7/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Winnebago County dumped 550 pages of discovery on counsel 2 hours and 15 minutes before “Paul’s” recommitment hearing, so he requested a adjournment. “Denied!” said the circuit court because §51.20(10)(e) allows only 1 adjournment, which had already been used. If the SPD had appointed counsel sooner, this wouldn’t have happened. On appeal, Paul argued that the court misread the statute, and he can’t control the appointment process. He also argued that the county failed to prove that the examiner gave him a “reasonable explanation” of the “particular medication” prescribed for him per §51.61(1)(g)(4) and Outagamie County v. Melanie L. The court of appeals affirmed.

Outagamie County v. R.G.K., 2019AP2134, 9/20/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

After the county petitioned to recommit “Rick” only his counsel appeared at the final hearing. The court found good cause to extend the recommitment in order to schedule a new final hearing. Unfortunately, Rick did not appear at the rescheduled hearing either, so the circuit court defaulted him.