Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11
Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.
¶6 As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment, and, therefore, the following test for dangerousness applies: … that “there is a substantial likelihood, based on the subject individual’s treatment record, that the individual would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.”
¶7 Here, the County presented expert testimony that there was a substantial likelihood that Henry would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn. It seems that Henry’s complaint is that the County did not provide evidence of the details supporting this opinion. The County, however, was not required to provide the supporting evidentiary details.