On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity

Issue Presented (composed by On Point)

What is the proper remedy when, in a ch. 51 recommitment proceeding, the circuit court fails to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277?

Outagamie County v. J.J.H., 2021AP244, District 3, 9/14/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Though J.J.H.’s primary challenge to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment is about the insufficiency of the evidence to prove dangerousness, the court of appeals (aided by the County’s concession) holds that the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness, as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

Outagamie County v. L.C.E., 2021AP324, District 3, 9/8/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Once again, a circuit court fails to make the findings necessary to support the extension of a commitment under § 51.20, resulting in the reversal of the extension order.

Waukesha County v. E.A.B., Jr., 2021AP986-FT, District 2, 9/8/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

E.A.B. was first committed in 2008. At what would appear to be the 12th extension hearing, in 2020, it was extended again. E.A.B.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for that extension, and for the associated medication order, are rejected by the court of appeals.

Shawano County v. S.L.V., 2021AP223, District 3, 8/17/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court to make specific fact findings about dangerousness at a ch. 51 commitment hearing. The circuit court didn’t do that in this case, so the commitment order is reversed.

Jackson County v. T.A.L., 2021AP499, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.A.L.’s transfer from outpatient status to a locked inpatient unit based on his medical needs didn’t violate the requirements of § 51.35.

Winnebago County v. J.C.S., 2021AP354, District 2, 8/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at J.C.S.’s final commitment hearing was “just enough” to prove J.C.S. was a proper subject of treatment, one of the elements necessary to justify a ch. 51 commitment order, § 51.20(1)(a)1.

Waukesha County v. M.J.S., 20221AP105-FT, District 2, 7/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under § 51.20(11)(a), a demand for a jury trial must be made “48 hours in advance of the time set for final hearing,” if notice of final hearing was provided to the subject individual or his or her lawyer. Applying Marathon County v. R.J.O., 2020 WI App 20, 392 Wis. 2d 157, 943 N.W.2d 898, the “time set for final hearing” is the original hearing date, not the date set after an adjournment.

Trempealeau County v. B.K., 2020AP1166, District 3, 7/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.K. (“Brian”) argues he was denied procedural due process because he was not given particularized notice of which standard of dangerousness the County intended to prove at the final commitment hearing. He also contends the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to prove he was dangerous. The court of appeals rejects with both claims.

Rusk County v. A.A., 2019AP839 & 2020AP1580, District 3, 7/20/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (2019AP839; 2020AP1580)

A.A. appeals two recommitment orders, raising multiple constitutional issues as to both and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness as to one of the cases and the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the other. The court of appeals acknowledges that A.A.’s constitutional claims raise “important” and “thorny” issues about recommitment petition pleading requirements and the constitutionality of recommitment proceedings, but it it resolves both cases on the evidentiary issues. (¶¶15, 31-32).