On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Outagamie County v. Aaron V., 2013AP808, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence supported an extension of Aaron’s ch. 51 commitment even though Dr. Dave, the county’s expert, did not specifically testify Aaron would “decompensate” or become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn and did not provide reasons for his opinion that Aaron would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn:

¶15      ….

Winnebago County v. Donna H., 2013AP80, District 2, 7/31/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the supreme court’s recent decision in Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, the court of appeals concludes Winnebago County failed to show Donna H. is not competent to refuse medication. The applicable statute, § 55.14(1)(b), requires the County to show that the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication have been explained to the individual subject to a possible involuntary medication order.

Court of Appeals certification, review granted 11/26/13; case activity

Issue certified:

Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) require that a commitment petition be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and allege that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 additionally require that the commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged in the petition as the predicate offense,

Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

In an important case for lawyers handling ch. 51 cases, the supreme court concludes there was insufficient evidence to prove a person subject to a commitment order was incompetent to refuse medication. Along the way, the court provides a “detailed interpretation of the statutory language”

Manitowoc County v. Samuel J.H., 2013 WI 68, on certification from court of appeals; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

Transfer of a person committed under ch. 51 to a more restrictive setting within an inpatient placement, or from outpatient to inpatient placement, is subject to § 51.35(1). The statute recognizes two different bases for transfer: reasonable medical or clinical judgment;

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point):

Should the Wisconsin Supreme Court modify the legal standard to be applied in third-party guardianship actions under Chapter 54 so as to require circuit courts to consider the best interests of the child?

Currently, a trial court may transfer custody of a minor child to a third party pursuant to Barstad v.

Winnebago County v. Gina A.R., 2013AP226, District 2, 5/22/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activty

The court rejects Gina A.R.’s claim that the evidence at the final hearing was insufficient to show she  is mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous, noting that much of her argument discusses facts not in the record and that the undisputed facts supported the commitment order. (¶¶4-6).

Polk County DHS v. Boe H., 2012AP2612, District 3, 5/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

While the circuit court lacked authority to specify that a person committed to outpatient treatment remain in a group home as a condition of the commitment order (¶14), the county department had the authority to place the person in a group home because that placement does not change the nature of his treatment from “outpatient”

Wood County v. Zebulon K., 2011AP2387, and Wood County v. Forest K., 2011AP2394, District 4, 2/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: Zebulon K.; Forest K.

The evidence was not sufficient to prove that Zebulon and Forest need to be protectively placed. Though Zebulon and Forest are developmentally disabled, the evidence does not establish they are “so totally incapable of providing for [their] own care and custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to [themselves] or others” under Wis.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.