Vilas County DHS v. N.J.P., 2019AP1567, 12/15/20, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity In this appeal from an initial commitment, the county conceded that it had not offered clear and convincing evidence to mee the 4th standard of dangerousness. It asked the court of appeals to affirm the commitment based on the… Read more
d. Can’t meet needs
Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 4/24/20; case activity Wisconsin’s involuntary commitment rate is higher than that of any other state–by a long shot. According to a report for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, the annual commitment rate among states ranges from 0.23 to 43.8… Read more
Sauk County v. R.A.S., 2018AP2253, 10/31/2019, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity R.A.S. was committed after a ch. 51 jury trial. The county alleged and the court instructed on two forms of dangerousness–those in Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. and 2.d.. R.A.S. asked that the verdict form require the jury to agree on… Read more
Milwaukee County v. I.K., 2017AP1425, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The County proved I.K. was dangerous under both § 51.20(1)(a)2.d., by showing there was a substantial probability I.K. would suffer physical harm resulting from his inability to satisfy basic needs due to mental illness, and § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., by showing that, after being advised… Read more
Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2017AP1313-FT, District 3, 11/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity There was sufficient evidence at D.J.W.’s commitment trial to establish he met the standard for dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d. D.J.W. argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to establish a recent failure to care for himself or a probability of imminent harm if he… Read more
Kenosha County v. CMM, 2015AP504, 9/23/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity Like many Chapter 51 appeals, this one didn’t challenge any legal standards. It argued that the evidence in this particular case did not meet the test for “dangerousness” in §51.20(1)(a)2.d. The court of appeals found the evidence more than sufficient. ¶8… Read more
Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees: ¶7 As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial… Read more
