Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30.
Reversals based on circuit court failures to comply with D.J.W. are nothing new. While the court of appeals has also expressed frustration with the number of appeals in Chapter 51 cases since D.J.W. and Marathon County v. D.K., its frustration here is directed squarely at circuit courts:
It is troubling that circuit courts are still failing to comply with D.J.W.’s specific directive, which our supreme court announced almost four years ago in April 2020. D.J.W.’s directive is neither complicated nor difficult to understand. In no uncertain terms, it says that a circuit court should specifically identify the WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2 statutory subdivision it is relying on in making the dangerousness determination. The circuit court did not do that here. Op., ¶24.
The court also beats back the county’s argument that the circuit court complied with D.J.W. “because the language the circuit court used in its oral ruling lines up “exactly with the words of those (the second and third) subdivisions.” As the court sees it:
The circuit court’s statement is simply a conclusory statement that does not address all parts of WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b or 2.c. This is insufficient under D.J.W. as it does not satisfy either purpose our supreme court discussed in that case. First, the circuit court’s ruling does not provide B.M.T. clarity as to the basis upon which he is currently dangerous. Second, it fails to provide this court with clarity as to which WIS. STAT. § 51.20 dangerousness subdivision the circuit court relied on in making its decision. It is not clear to this court from the circuit court’s two sentences—which jumble together a few words from § 51.20(1)(a)2.b, 2.c, and § 51.20(1)(am) and comprise the circuit court’s entire explanation on dangerousness—that the circuit court found B.M.T. dangerous under § 51.20(1)(am) with a link to § 51.20(1)(a)2.b and 2.c. The circuit court’s decision does not contain specific factual findings on dangerousness or reference to the subdivision paragraph. Op., ¶28.
While reversal of B.M.T.’s 2023 order is the victory that matters, the court does reject his competency-based challenge to the 2022 order because B.M.T., through trial counsel, forfeited his right to challenge the circuit court’s competency to enter that order by failing to object. Op., ¶17.
