Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

2. Recommitment

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033, petition for review granted 2/24/21; case activity Issues for review: 1. Whether S.A.M.’s appeal from his recommitment is moot because it expired before S.A.M. filed his notice of appeal. 2. Whether the county failed to meet its burden of proving dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. 3. Whether S.A.M. was… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 2020AP370, petition for review granted 2/26/21; case activity Issue for review: Section 51.20(11) provides that the subject of a commitment proceeding must demand a jury trial 48 hours in advance of the time set for the final hearing. When the court adjourns the hearing for good cause to appoint new counsel… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 2/9/21, affirming an unpublished COA opinion, 2018AP1887; case activity Waupaca County sought to extend Kate’s initial commitment for one year.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 }

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 }