Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 5/122/25; case activity
In yet another interesting Chapter 51 appeal, SCOW signals its willingness to resolve whether a colloquy is required before accepting a stipulation to an involuntary mental commitment order (and accompanying involuntary med order)–an issue which has recurred since 2005.
As it has continued to do in other recent cases, SCOW accepts only one of the issues from N.A.L.’s petition for review:
N.A.L. appeared by phone at his final hearing. His counsel stated that he was willing to stipulate to commitment, but during the hearing N.A.L. asked what a stipulation was, stated he thought the court hearing was to determine when he would be discharged from Winnebago, and, after the court accepted the stipulation, asked what he had just agreed to.
Did the trial court violate N.A.L.’s due process rights by accepting the stipulation for commitment and issuing an order for involuntary medication without conducting a colloquy to ensure the stipulation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
(For those curious, the issue left on the table is whether, given the due process protections embodied by Chapter 51, courts ought to permit mentally ill persons to stipulate, period.)
As we discussed at length in our post on the COA decision, the colloquy issue has come up in multiple other appeals. We stated at one point on this blog that a “binding decision on this important issue would be really helpful.” It looks like we will finally get one. Accordingly, stay tuned for some possibly interesting changes to Chapter 51 procedure.
