≡ Menu

3. Civil Commitments

Winnebago County v. D.J.S., 2022AP1281, District 2 (one-judge decision ineligible for publication), case activity Accompanied by a familiar sounding caveat that “it certainly would have been better if the County had presented more evidence and the circuit court had been more detailed and specific in its oral determination,” the court of appeals rejects D.J.S.’s sufficiency… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Rock Count v. H.V., 2022AP1585-FT, 1/20/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity This is an appeal from a ch. 51 recommitment under the 2nd standard– dangerousness to others. H.V.’s main argument was that the circuit court erroneously relied on hearsay to find that he is dangerous when not committed. The court of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP603, 1/11/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity This appeal involves an important, recurring issue. Must the circuit court conduct a colloquy to determine whether the subject of a ch. 51 commitment proceeding knowingly and voluntarily stipulates to a commitment and medication? The court of appeals holds that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Calumet County DH&HS v. T.M.S., 2022AP1563-FT, 1/11/23; District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court recommitted T.M.S. based on the 3rd and 4th standards of dangerousness. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the county’s evidence and underscored Dr. Bales’ admission that he couldn’t point to any specific information in T.M.S.’s… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Marathon County v. L.A.R., 2022AP1226-FT, 12/29/22, District 3 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity “Laura” has suffered from bipolar disorder for over 30 years. At her initial commitment hearing, one examiner testified that she met the 2nd standard of dangerousness. Another testified that she also met the 4th standard. The circuit court held that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Winnebago County v. C.L.S., 2022AP1155-FT, 12/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity C.L.S. sought reversal of his recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.e arguing that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient, and the circuit court failed to make the findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942… Read more

{ 1 comment }

Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62; case activity Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to  be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published… Read more

{ 2 comments }
RSS