On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

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.

Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2021AP1955 & 2022AP102, 8/30/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a double defense win! You might even call it a quadruple defense win! The court of appeals consolidated “Chris’s” appeals from his initial commitment order and his recommitment order. It reversed his initial commitment order because (1) the circuit court violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient. It reversed the recommitment order because (3) the circuit court’s fact findings were clearly erroneous, and (4) all the county proved was that if treatment were withdrawn Chris would engage in the same conduct that was insufficient to support the initial commitment.

Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2022AP140-FT, certification granted 9/14/22,  reversed, 2023 WI 59; case activity

Issues (from the COA certification):

1. Does the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2021 WI 85, ¶38, 399 Wis. 2d 471, 966 N.W.2d 590, apply retroactively or only prospectively?

2. In a ch. 51 case involving a petition to extend a commitment order, is circuit court competency determined from the expiration of the earlier commitment order or from the expiration of the extension order, even where the extension order is determined on appeal to be invalid?

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2022AP251, 8/31/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W. requires a circuit to make specific factual findings with reference to the dangerousness standard that its recommitment order is based upon.  The circuit court failed to follow D.J.W. but the court of appeals affirmed because the circuit court’s words and the county’s closing argument supposedly made it clear that they were relying on the second and fifth standards of dangerousness.

Wood County v. J.L.S., 2022AP299, 8/25/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court entered orders for initial commitment order and involuntary medication order. Later (not sure how much later), the County persuaded the circuit court to dismiss these orders. On appeal, J.L.S. argued, among other things, that the appeal of orders was not moot due to their collateral consequences. The County filed a letter saying that it wouldn’t file a response brief because J.L.S.

Barron County v. K.L., 2021AP133, District 3, 8/9/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, held that “going forward circuit courts in recommitment proceedings are to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” Deciding an issue addressed in the dissenting opinion in Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, the court of appeals holds the failure to comply with D.J.W.‘s findings requirement can be a harmless error and was harmless in this case.