Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard. Wis… Read more
c. Pattern of acts
Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third… Read more
Winnebago County v. C.H., 2023AP505, 8/30/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity In this Ch. 51 appeal, COA swats aside familiar 51 arguments, expresses its frustration with a “flood” of Ch. 51 appeals and, with approving citation to a dissent from SCOW, hints that we may not have heard the last of… Read more
Defense win! County failed to prove patient received a reasonable explanation of proposed medication
Marinette County v. A.M.N., 2022AP1395, District III, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available) Faced with a weak record, COA holds that A.M.N. cleared imposing hurdles to relief and reverses the lower court’s medication order as there was no proof he received a reasonable explanation of the proposed medication. However, despite a… Read more
Marathon County v. T.R.H., 2022AP1394, 3/14/23, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Counties often seek recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c, the third standard of dangerousness. It is the easiest standard to satisfy–especially at the recommitment stage. But not this time. The court of appeals held that the county can’t just offer testimony that, at… Read more
Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2022AP1207, 1/18/23, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity This appeal involves a recommitment under the 3rd standard of dangerousness. G.M.M. argued that the county presented insufficient evidence of both mental illness and dangerousness. She also argued that the circuit court failed to make the findings required under Langlade… Read more
Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2022AP1357-FT, 11/23/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity J.D.J. has schizophrenia. At his recommitment hearing, Dr. Monese testified that if treatment were withdrawn, he would become a proper subject of commitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c. J.D.J. does not believe he has a mental illness, so he would stop treatment and… Read more
Sauk County v. A.D.S., 2022AP550, 11/17/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court recommitted A.D.S. based on §51.20(1)(a)2.c, which seems to be the standard du jour for ch. 51 recommitments. Even though A.D.S. hadn’t recently behaved dangerously, the court of appeals affirmed because recommitments may be based on past evidence… Read more
