On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Racine County v. P.Z., 2024AP146-FT, 5/1/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a relatively straightforward appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects P.Z.’s sufficiency challenges and affirms.

Marinette County v. C.R.J., 2023AP1695-FT, 4/16/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.R.J. (“Caleb”) challenged his commitment on two fronts: (1) the circuit court’s failure to comply with Langlade County v. D.J.W.’s “specific factual findings” mandate and (2) the county failed to introduce sufficient evidence of dangerousness under either standard. After critiquing the circuit court’s factual findings, the court agrees with Caleb that insufficient evidence existed to involuntarily commit him.

State v. J.S.,, 2024AP180 & 2024AP181, 4/16/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from TPR orders related to her two children, J.S. (“Julia”) raised two issues: whether the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over her and whether the circuit court erred by granting the GAL’s substitution request. The court of appeals makes short work of each argument because Julia forfeited the claims by not first raising either issue in the circuit court.

State ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County, the Honorable Ellen K. Berz and State of Wisconsin, 2024 WI 14, 3/26/24; case activity

A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals’ denial of Davis’ petition for a supervisory writ after concluding the the circuit court had no “plain duty” to treat Davis’ request for substitution as timely under Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4). The court also uses the decision to clarify that a petition for a supervisory writ is not the preferred vehicle to seek appellate review of a circuit court’s denial of a request for substitution that was filed after arraignment. Op, ¶11.

Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.

Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2023AP1359, 3/13/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal presenting a straightforward D.J.W. claim, COA affirms while also giving credence to harmless error arguments.

Portage County v. D.P.W.O., 2023AP1975, 3/7/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal challenging the use of hearsay statements contained within an examiner’s report, COA rejects D.P.W.O.’s attempt to use the plain error doctrine to prove that this unpreserved error merits reversal of the extension order.

Winnebago County v. T.S., 2023AP1267, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another 51 appeal attacking the sufficiency of the circuit court’s findings, COA rejects the County’s arguments and reverses.

Winnebago County v. C.J.H., 2023AP1263, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a 51 appeal presenting several commonly litigated issues, COA finds no error and affirms.

Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21.