On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. A.M.N., 2024AP440-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While the State concedes that A.M.N.’s statutory right to appear in person for a competency hearing was violated, COA finds the error harmless and affirms.

Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity; petition for review granted 11/17/25

COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.

Dane County v. A.M.M., 2024AP1670, 2/13/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amanda” challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to her medication order. The COA calls this a “close case,” but affirms.

Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.

Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25 case activity

In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.

Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2024AP1520-FT, 2/4/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms, holding that the evidence of a verbal threat to kill someone, and “Carl’s” actions during a subsequent police chase, were both sufficient to establish dangerousness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.

Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.

Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication.  The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.

Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).