On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Outagamie County v. C.J.A., 2022 WI App 36; case activity

On April 12th the court of appeals issued an opinion holding that due process does not require a county to give particularized notice of the standard of dangerousness that a person will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn. It also found that special verdict given to the jury defective. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on a recommitment that had expired. Happy news! The court of appeals withdrew that opinion. The reissued opinion omits the due process decision, retains the special verdict win, and now reverses outright.

Milwaukee County v. A.J.G., 2021AP1338, 5/3/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

When a circuit court orders a ch. 51 recommitment, it must specify which standard of dangerousness the patient will satisfy if treatment is withdrawn. Langlade County. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 941 N.W.2d 277. This case holds that a circuit court must also specify the standard of dangerousness that the patient meets when ordering an initial commitment.

Rock County v. J.B., 2021AP1157 & 2021AP1883, 4/14/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case history

This is a consolidated appeal of J.B.’s original, six-month commitment and a subsequent nine-month extension of that commitment.

Walworth County v. P.S., 2021AP2090-FT, 4/13/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court entered an initial commitment order against P.C. without specifying a standard of dangerousness. The court of appeals shrugged. It did not matter because the circuit court’s findings “were specific, tracked the statutory criteria, and are supported by the record.” Opinion, ¶10 n.2.

Waupaca County v. H.I.B., 2021AP2026, 4/7/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

It is uncontested that “Hazel” has done well for three commitments in a row. Yet the court of appeals has affirmed her 4th Chapter 51 recommitment  because the jury could have inferred a “substantial probability” of death or serious injury from evidence that was “only suggestive” and that “lacked details such as dates and clear descriptions of conduct.”

State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, 2/16/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) for more than one offense, the commitments for the offenses may be ordered to run consecutively.

Taylor County Human Services v. L.E., 2021AP1292, 2/15/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court extended “Luca’s” commitment, directed that he be placed in a locked ward, and ordered involuntary medication. On appeal, Luca challenges his placement in a locked ward and the involuntary medication order. At a minimum, the court of appeals analysis of Luca’s right to refuse involuntary medication merits review by SCOW.

Portage County v. K.K., 2021AP1315, 2/10/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This opinion has alarming implications for disabled people. The circuit court issued a summary judgment order continuing K.K.’s protective placement. She appealed and argued that summary judgment is not allowed in Chapter 55 cases. The court of appeals refused to reverse. It predicted that this due process violation would never recur, dismissed the appeal as moot, and thus ensured that the due process error can recur.

Outagamie County v. D.D.G., 2021AP511, District 3, 1/20/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Dana” has been under commitment since 2017. It is undisputed that she has taken her medication and has done nothing dangerous in the interim.  Yet the court of appeals affirmed her 2021 recommitment because she questions her diagnosis and her need for medication and has concerns about its health effects. The court said that if she were released, she would decline medication and decompensate. Her case highlights a tension between §51.20(1)(am) and a person’s 14th Amendment right to refuse medication. It also shows that courts continue to misapply §51.61(1)(g)4., the involuntary medication statute.

Rock County v. H.V., 2021AP1760-FT, 1/13/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This appeal concerns a recurring problem in Chapter 51 cases: the lack of objection to damaging hearsay at the final hearing. If the appellate lawyer raises ineffective assistance of counsel in the circuit court, the case will become moot before the issue is finally resolved. Here, the appellate lawyer when straight to the court of appeals, admitted the issue was forfeited, and argued “plain error.”  The court of appeals rejected the argument based on a significant error of constitutional law.