≡ Menu

2. Recommitment

Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 2/9/21, affirming an unpublished COA opinion, 2018AP1887; case activity Waupaca County sought to extend Kate’s initial commitment for one year. The County’s examiner and witnesses agreed that she had not been dangerous during her initial commitment. She had taken her medication and was doing really well. She even… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Winnebago County v. D.D.A., 2020AP1351, District 2, 12/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The court of appeals rejects D.D.A.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the petition to extend his ch. 51 commitment and to the evidence presented at the extension hearing. First D.D.A. argues the petition to extend didn’t specify whether the County… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Outagamie County v. R.W., 2020AP1171-FT, 12/17/20, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Nobody testified that Rachel behaved dangerously during her extant commitment. Her doctor had no knowledge of medication non-compliance.  A social worker once saw a Haldol pill on a plate on a counter and inferred that Rachel had not taken her… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Fond Du Lac County v. R.O.V., 2019AP1228, 2020AP853, 12/16/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity In these consolidated cases, the court of appeals reviewed both Ray’s initial commitment and his 2nd recommitment (not his 1st recommitment), which has not yet ended. Although the initial commitment order expired long ago, the court held… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Jackson County v. W.G., 2020AP961, District 4, 11/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The evidence presented at a ch. 51 extension hearing is found wanting because it doesn’t establish dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. ¶16     The County has the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Portage County v. L.E., 2020Ap1239-FT, District 4, 10/29/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The evidence presented at L.E.’s ch. 51 extenstion hearing was sufficient to prove she was dangerous and was not competent to refuse medication. ¶21     …. [Doctor] Khalil’s testimony was not so vague, equivocal, or lacking [as to fail… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Portage County v. E.R.R., 2020AP870-FT, District 4, 10/1/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity As the supreme court recently emphasized, at a proceeding to extend a ch. 51 commitment, proving dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(am) requires evidence establishing that the person is likely to be dangerous under one of the specific standards in § 51.20(1)(a)2… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033, 9/3/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), reversed, 2022 WI 46; case activity Wisconsin involuntarily commits mentally ill people  at a higher rate than any other state in the United States–close to 5 times the national average. Click here. Wisconsin is also in the minority of states that will… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS