Trempealeau County v. R.B., 2024AP1052, 12/10/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms, holding that the evidence of potential deterioration during commitment period justified extension order.
“Rachel” was originally committed in July of 2023 due to concerns that she would harm herself given that she was hearing voices telling her kill herself. (¶2). In December 2023, the County moved for the first extension of that order. (Id).
Although Rachel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that she was dangerous, COA holds that the County did enough to satisfy its burden under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a. and § 51.20(1)(am). (¶5). Here, there was evidence that Rachel had been hospitalized twice during the commitment period. (¶10). The examining psychiatrist opined there was “high likelihood” she would become dangerous but-for an extension. (Id.). There was also evidence that Rachel had been under “stress” and that she had “suicidal ideations shortly before the extension hearing.” (¶11). Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence that Rachel would pose a statutorily-recognized level of risk should treatment be withdrawn. (¶12). In fact, COA labels her case as presenting “exactly the type” of fact pattern which the recommitment standard was designed to address. (Id.).
