On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. David Hager, Jr., 2017 WI App 8, petition for review granted 5/15/17; reversed 4/19/18; case activity (including briefs)

This is the first (likely) published case to construe the 2013 amendments to the ch. 980 discharge petition standard. The court of appeals holds that while the legislature required a committed person seeking a discharge trial to meet a higher burden of production, it did not permit courts to deny a trial based on an assessment that the evidence as a whole favors the state.

Iowa County v. J.L.R., 2016AP1459, 1/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

J.L.R. challenges her ch. 51 commitment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that she was dangerous to herself or others. The court of appeals finds sufficient evidence as to danger to others, and so affirms.

E.C. v. Susan Krueger, 2015AP2196, 12/13/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

E.C., an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s, planned for her future while she was still competent. She named her son, G.C., as her power of attorney for finances and health care. After she became incompetent, her family began fighting about her care. Krueger, E.C.’s daughter, filed a Ch. 54 guardianship proceeding. The issue in this case is whether Chapter 54 can trump a person’s advance planning.

Milwaukee County v. M.G.-H., 2016AP596, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at a hearing on whether to continue M.G.-H.’s protective placement was sufficient to show M.G.-H. “has a primary need for residential care and custody” and “is so totally incapable of providing for his or her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(a) and (c).

Winnebago County v. J.M., 2016AP619, District 2, 11/9/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/15/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 37; case activity

J.M.’s lawyer didn’t secure civilian clothes for him to wear at his ch. 51 recommitment hearing, so he appeared before the jury in his prison greens (sans the shackles, at least; and the stun belt wasn’t visible to the jury). The court of appeals rejects the claim J.M.’s lawyer was ineffective for failing to make a modest outlay at the local Goodwill to purchase J.M. an outfit without the negative stigmata and for failing to ask for a curative instruction.

Which are better: Involuntary Civil Commitment Courts or Mental Health Courts? This new article by New York University Law Professor Professor Michael Perlin compares and contrasts the two.

Outagamie County v. J.J., 2016AP43, 10/12/16, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If this opinion doesn’t cross the line of Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶¶91, 97, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, it at least curls its toes around the decision. 

They may seem more measured and bias free, but according to this new article, they aren’t very good. Compas has significant flaws, and the accuracy of the Static 99-R “is not much better than a coin toss.” This article links to a number of studies that might support a challenge to the use of these tools.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179 held that an individual is capable of rehabilitation, and thus a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51, when treatment would control the symptoms of the individual’s disorder.  If, on the other hand, treatment would control only the individual’s activity or behavior, then he is not a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51. The question is: how are courts to determine whether treatment is controlling symptoms of disorder–especially when medical experts, when describing the effects of treatment, blur the line between symptoms and behavior?

Review of an unpublished summary court of appeals order; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from petition for review):

1. Was the Petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition for discharge from Chapter 980 commitment which included information that the Petitioner had terminated sexual acting out and where a psychologist reported improvement in an important area of functioning?

2. Should this case be remanded to the circuit court for a review that meets the requirements of § 980.09(2), namely, that the circuit court review all previous evaluations of a Chapter 980 Respondent?