On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

court of appeals certification, supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

 § 51.35(1)(e) Patient Transfer, Time Limits

Issue certified:

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2012 WI 72, affirming 2011 WI App 61; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)

¶2   We are asked to decide whether Wisconsin Statutes chapter 980 (2005-06)[3] requires the dismissal of a pending commitment petition when the individual subject to the petition is re-incarcerated because of the revocation of parole or extended supervision.  

MaryBeth Lipp v. Outagamie County Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011AP152, District 3, 6/5/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Failure to decide a guardianship petition within the statutorily mandated 90 days of filing (§ 54.44(1)) caused the trial court to lose competency to proceed. Lack of objection didn’t waive the issue, ¶¶11-12, citing Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut,

Green County v. Janeen J. C., 2011AP2603, District 4, 5/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Janeen J.C.: Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court, before entering an involuntary medication order, failed to make requisite findings that Janeen J.C. wasn’t competent to make an informed choice, Virgil D. v. Rock County, 189 Wis. 2d 1,

Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2012AP99, District 3, 5/22/12, WSC review granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Melanie M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain involuntary medication order.

¶11      We reject Melanie’s argument that the expert needs to iterate the specific words of the statute in order for the evidence to be sufficient.   

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.

¶13  Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Aaron B.: Jeremy C. Perri, Hannah Blair Schieber, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Guardianship – Placement Hearing – Personal Appearance 

Failure to object to ward’s inability to appear at guardianship placement hearing waived argument that court should not have held hearing in ward’s absence.

¶7        Wisconsin Stat. § 55.10(2) provides that a ward must attend a protective placement hearing unless “after a personal interview,

Trempealeau County v. Charles O., 2011AP2794, District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Charles O.’s argument that the evidence fell short of the “fifth-standard” showing of dangerousness, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶14, 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851:

¶11      When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,

State v. Jonathan Phillips, 2010AP1490, District 4, 4/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Phillips: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; originally recommended for publication, changed per order 5/1/12

Although admittedly “inconsistent” in the way it defines “mental disorder,” when read “as a whole,” the pattern jury instruction for ch. 980 commitments (Wis JI—Criminal 2502) adequately conveys the required nexus between mental disorder and serious difficulty controlling behavior.

In the matter of State of Wisconsin v. Bryan J. Stanley: La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County, 2012 WI App 42 (recommended for publication); case activity

Open Records / Public Access to Court Records – Treatment Records, Generally 

(Discussion with respect to newspaper’s Open Records request for information contained in NGI conditional release plan:)

¶25      While this is a criminal commitment case following an NGI finding under Wis.