On Point

Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

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. 

Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30.

Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2023AP863, 12/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another defense win reliant on Langlade County v. D.J.W.,  COA holds that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings in this Chapter 51 appeal.

Waupaca County v. J.D.C., 2023AP961, 9/14/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In another big defense win, COA clarifies the two requirements imposed on circuit courts by Langlade County v. D.J.W. and provides a roadmap for future challenges.

Barron County v. K.L., 2022AP502, District 3, 02/07/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity

K.L. (Katie) challenged the 2021 extension of her original 2013 Chapter 51  commitment on two grounds: (1) insufficient evidence of dangerousness and (2) the circuit court’s failure to “make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI App 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court affirms Katie’s recommitment after concluding the county presented “clear and convincing evidence” that Katie was dangerous under the fourth standard (see Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.d.), and  that the circuit court complied with D.J.W. when it “checked two boxes on its written order,” which indicated that Katie was dangerous under the third and fourth standards. (Opinion, ¶¶2, 12).

Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2021AP1955 & 2022AP102, 8/30/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a double defense win! You might even call it a quadruple defense win! The court of appeals consolidated “Chris’s” appeals from his initial commitment order and his recommitment order. It reversed his initial commitment order because (1) the circuit court violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. and (2) the county’s evidence was insufficient. It reversed the recommitment order because (3) the circuit court’s fact findings were clearly erroneous, and (4) all the county proved was that if treatment were withdrawn Chris would engage in the same conduct that was insufficient to support the initial commitment.

Manitowoc County v. J.M.K., 2022AP122, 7/27/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.K.  is currently diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. He has been committed several times since 2015. Right now he is doing well. He lives in a supervised apartment but holds a job, participates in community activities, and works out at the YMCA. The county monitors his medication compliance because in the past when he has stopped taking them he deteriorated rapidly.

Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2021AP1490, 12/23/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

At Waupaca County’s request, the circuit court entered recommitment and medication orders against G.T.H. Six months later, the County conceded that the circuit court had failed to make the factual findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶¶3, 40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2021AP581, 10/12/21, Distract 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Before a circuit court enters an order to recommit a person under Chapter 51, it is supposed to make specific factual findings with reference to the applicable standard of dangerousness in Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(a)2.  Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court violated this rule.