On Point blog, page 35 of 60
Evidence was sufficient to support ch. 51 medication order
Winnebago County v. Brian C., 2014AP2792-FT, District 2, 3/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The record supports the trial court’s finding that the County met its burden of proving Brian was incompetent to refuse medication under § 51.61(1)(g)4(intro) and b.
“Statutes need to be complied with,” and failure to comply with § 55.10(2) deprived circuit court of competency to proceed
Sheboygan County v. Christopher A.G., 2014AP2489, District 2, 2/25/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court erred in holding a due process hearing on Christopher’s protective placement without Christopher’s physical presence and without the guardian ad litem (GAL) waiving his attendance in writing prior to the hearing as required by § 55.10(2) and Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160, 330 Wis. 2d 737, 795 N.W.2d 450.
Evidence sufficient to show person would be proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn
Milwaukee County v. Aaron B., 2014AP2008-FT, 2/18/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
Aaron was deemed mentally ill and committed for 2 months under Chapter 51 when he bit off his caregiver’s ear. Afterwards, the county asked to extend his commitment under §51.20(13(g). Based upon statements from Aaron’s treating psychologists, the circuit court agreed and the court of appeals affirmed.
Aaron certainly improved on medication,
County met burden to prove need for involuntary treatment order for prisoner
Winnebago County v. Martin W., 2014AP1351, District 2, 2/11/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this case involving a ch. 51 proceeding involving a state prison inmate, the County met its burden under § 51.20(1)(ar) to prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) appropriate less restrictive forms of treatment have been attempted unsuccessfully and (2) Martin was fully informed about his treatment needs.
Evidence sufficient to establish “pattern” and prove dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c.
Outagamie County v. Lori D., 2014AP1911, District 3, 1/27/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was sufficient evidence to commit Lori under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. because her behavior over one night showed a “pattern of recent acts or omissions” that evidenced impaired judgment and because the lack of services available in the community established a “substantial probability of physical impairment or injury” to Lori if she wasn’t committed.
SCOW: Daubert standard doesn’t apply to ch. 980 discharge proceedings where the original commitment petition was filed before Daubert standard was adopted
State v. Michael Alger & State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3, 1/20/15, affirming two published court of appeals decisions,: Alger, 2013 WI App 148; Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity: Alger; Knipfer
The supreme court holds that the Daubert standard for expert testimony does not apply to discharge proceedings in a ch. 980 case if the original petition for commitment was filed before the effective date of the adoption of the Daubert standard. The court also holds there are no due process or equal protection problems in applying one evidentiary standard to cases in which the original petition was filed before the effective date and a different evidentiary standard to cases filed after that date.
7th Circuit: Committing a person under ch. 980 while he’s still in prison doesn’t violate Foucha v. Louisiana
Carl C. Gilbert, Jr., v. Deborah McCulloch, No. 13-3460 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015)
Gilbert was committed as a sexually violent person while he was still in prison serving a criminal sentence, so he was not transferred to the ch. 980 treatment facility till he finished the sentence. The state courts upheld his commitment and the Seventh Circuit now rejects Gilbert’s habeas challenge, holding the state court’s decision was not clearly contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
Evidence was sufficient to establish substantial probability that ch. 51 respondent would harm himself
Milwaukee County v. Andy S., 2014AP1885, District 1, 1/13/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence was sufficient to prove dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a., as it showed Andy “[e]vidence[d] a substantial probability of physical harm to himself … as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.”
SCOW: “threat of suicide” ground for involuntary commitment does not require articulation of plan
Outagamie v. Michael H., 2014 WI 127, 12/16/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity
Section 51.20(1)(a)2.a authorizes the involuntary commitment of a person who is “dangerous,” a test that may be met by showing recent threats of, or attempts at, suicide. This unanimous decision holds that in the right circumstances just thinking about suicide–without articulating a plan for committing it–constitutes a sufficient “threat” to satisfy the involuntary commitment statute.
Lower burden of proof at ch. 980 discharge trial doesn’t violate due process
State v. Thornon F. Talley, 2015 WI App 4; case activity
A person committed as a sexually violent person under ch. 980 does not have a due process right to have the state prove at a discharge hearing that he is still a sexually violent person, so the clear and convincing evidence standard under § 980.09(3) is not facially unconstitutional.