Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.
Evidence of Dangerousness
Following recommitment, “Janice” argues the evidence was insufficient to establish she was dangerous. Although COA’s lengthy statement of facts contains many concerning details about Janice’s historical conduct, Janice argues that the mere fact that she was once dangerousness is insufficient to prove current dangerousness in a recommitment proceeding. (¶29). She argues that the County needed to prove she was still suffering from the “unusual beliefs” leading up to her initial commitment. (Id.). COA disagrees and points out that the recommitment standard expressly acknowledges that the person’s mental illness may be presently under control. (Id.). Here, the County’s witness “clearly opined in her testimony and admitted report that if treatment were withdrawn, Janice would ‘quickly’ decompensate and again be a danger to the ‘community, [her] family, and herself.'” (Id.). The witness was not required to specifically predict Janice’s future dangerousness to the degree of specificity COA believes Janice is demanding. (Id.).
D.J.W. Violation
While Janice also argues the circuit court’s oral ruling was deficient, COA points out that the written order clearly stated the basis for a finding of dangerousness. (¶32). The circuit court’s references to the testimony, while somewhat scant, are deemed sufficient and, in any case, COA holds that the record evidence clearly supports a finding of dangerousness. (¶34).
Explanation of Advantages, Disadvantages and Alternatives to Medication
Here, both the testimony and the report admitted into evidence support a finding that a legally sufficient explanation was given. (¶37). And, because there is no non-medication alternative for treating schizophrenia, the doctor could not be faulted for not discussing nonexistent alternatives. (¶38).
