On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, on certification from the court of appeals, and affirming the circuit court’s orders for commitment and involuntary medication; majority opinion by Justice Gableman, concurrence/dissent by Justice Abrahamson; case activity

The provisions of ch. 51 allowing the involuntary mental health commitment of prison inmates without a finding of dangerousness does not violate substantive due process because the statute’s provisions are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2015AP591, District 1, 12/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The evidence in the record is sufficient to support an order for involuntary medication under § 51.61(1)(g)4(intro.) and b.

Winnebago County v. B.C., 2015AP1192-FT, District 2, 10/14/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, the court of appeals holds the County proved B.C. was incompetent to refuse medication, § 51.61(1)(g)4.(intro.) and b., rejecting B.C.’s arguments that: 1) the record doesn’t document how and when he was advised of advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication; and 2) the evidence doesn’t prove B.C. was incapable of making an informed choice about accepting or refusing medication.

Clark County v. S.A.G., 2015AP793, District 4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that S.A.G. suffers from a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, as required by § 55.08(1)(d).

Dane County v. T.B., 2015AP799. 10/1/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.B. sought to vacate an order for a Chapter 51 commitment on the grounds that the circuit court lost competency to proceed when it failed to make a verbatim record of his probable cause hearing per Wis. Stat. §51.20(5). According to the court appeals, SCR 71.01(2)(a) excepts from the reporting requirement proceedings before a court commissioner that may be reviewed de novo,

Kenosha County v. CMM, 2015AP504, 9/23/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Like many Chapter 51 appeals, this one didn’t challenge any legal standards. It argued that the evidence in this particular case did not meet the test for “dangerousness” in §51.20(1)(a)2.d. The court of appeals found the evidence more than sufficient.

Ozaukee County v. M.L.G., 2015AP1469-FT, 9/23/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

More specifically, the court of appeals held that the County had offered evidence sufficient to establish that MLG was dangerous under §51.20(1)(a)2.c and that he was substantially incapable of understanding his treatment options under § 51.61(1)(g)4b:

Ozaukee County v. C.Y.K., 2015AP1080-FT, District 2, 9/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Even though the examining psychiatrist opined that C.Y.K. was not substantially incapable of making an informed choice about accepting or refusing medication or treatment, the record as a whole supported the circuit court’s order for involuntary medication and treatment.

Milwaukee County v. Kent F., 2015AP388, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Kent’s argument that, under Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179, he is not a proper subject for ch. 51 commitment because he is not capable of rehabilitative treatment.

Walworth County DHS v. M.M.L., 2014AP2845, 7/15/15, District 2 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals affirms the involuntary commitment for M.M.L. under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., which requires evidence of impaired judgment based on recent acts or omissions showing a substantial probability that she would physically impair or injure herself or others. It rejects her challenges to the sufficiency of evidence and the testifying examiner’s references to  hearsay he relied on when forming his opinion.