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
3. Civil Commitments
Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available) In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements… Read more
Waukesha County DHHS v. M.S., 2022AP2065, District 2, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available) M.S. (“Martin”) spent nearly 22 years committed under Chapter 51. In 2021, the county switched course and sought and received a permanent guardianship and protective placement under Chapters 54 and 55. Martin challenged whether he was a… Read more
Price County v. C.W., 2023AP18-FT, District III, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Under the specific facts of this case, COA holds that the County was not required to call a medical expert at “Clara’s” protective placement hearing and affirms. In the fall of 2021, Clara stipulated to a guardianship under Chapter 54… Read more
Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the… 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
Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2022AP2146, District IV, 8/24/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available) Contrary to what has seemed like a steady stream of unsuccessful hearsay-based Chapter 51 appeals, see e.g., here, here, here, here, and here, G.T.H. succussfully convinces the court of appeals to reverse his recommitment, which was based on… Read more
Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP1730, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available) L.A.T. (“Linda”) convinced the court of appeals the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on hearsay testimony from a psychiatrist to support its dangerousness finding. However, the court holds that sufficient non-hearsay evidence established that “Linda’s… Read more
