On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

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mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.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).

Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.

Dane County v. M.A.A., 2024AP1589, 12/27/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntarily administering medication to M.A.A. in light of evidence that M.A.A. denies he has a mental illness.

State v. D.E.C., 2024AP1789-CR & 2024AP1799-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In yet another published decision pertaining to an involuntary medication order entered in conjunction with pretrial competency proceedings, COA holds that the testimony of a treating psychiatrist, in conjunction with the proposed treatment plan, was legally sufficient and affirms the order for treatment.