942 N.W.2d 277
Wis.2020Background
- Jan. 30, 2017: Circuit court committed D.J.W. for six months, finding mental illness, dangerousness, and ordering involuntary medication.
- Before expiration, Langlade County sought a one-year recommitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 51; the recommitment hearing (July 18, 2017) put on only Dr. John Coates as the County's witness.
- Dr. Coates diagnosed schizophrenia, described auditory/visual hallucinations and delusions, and testified D.J.W. lost a job, lived with parents, received disability, and would worsen if off medication; he said the main danger was D.J.W.’s inability to care for himself if treatment stopped.
- The circuit court extended the commitment and continued involuntary medication; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court (despite the petitioner’s death during proceedings) reversed: it held the recommitment evidence insufficient under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c or 2.d and (1)(am), and directed that future recommitment orders include specific factual findings tied to the particular § 51.20(1)(a)2 subdivision relied upon.
Issues
| Issue | D.J.W.'s Argument | Langlade County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to extend involuntary commitment under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2 and (1)(am) | Testimony only showed job loss, family housing, and disability — not the statutory kind of dangerousness required | Expert testimony established schizophrenia that would materially worsen off treatment: impaired judgment and likely inability to care for self — satisfying a substantial-likelihood standard under § 51.20(1)(am) | Reversed: evidence did not show the substantial probability of death, serious physical injury, debilitation, or imminent physical harm under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d, nor a substantial probability of physical impairment/injury under 2.c (as applied via (1)(am)). |
| Whether circuit courts must identify the specific § 51.20(1)(a)2 subdivision relied upon in recommitments | (Implicit) Recommitment record should show statutory basis | (Implicit) County proceeded without specifying subdivision at hearing | Held: Circuit courts must make specific factual findings referencing the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2 relied on for recommitment. |
| Standard of review for dangerousness determinations on appeal | County/court of appeals treated dangerousness findings as factual (clearly erroneous review) | Same as above | Held: Dangerousness is a legal determination (a question whether facts satisfy statutory standard) evaluated independently on appeal; underlying facts are reviewed for clear error. |
| Mootness after petitioner’s death while appeal pending | Case moot but asked court to exercise an exception and decide merits | County had urged denial of review earlier; at Supreme Court oral argument shifted some statutory reliance | Held: Majority exercised discretion to decide merits (citing McDonald criminal precedent); dissent argued the appeal was moot and should have been dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (civil commitment requires due process and proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) (State may not confine a nondangerous person who can survive safely in freedom with family or friends)
- State v. Dennis H., 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 2002) (interpreting the § 51.20(1)(a)2.e "fifth criterion" for dangerousness related to incapability to make informed treatment decisions)
- Portage Cty. v. J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509 (Wis. 2019) (explains recommitment requirements under § 51.20(1)(am) and addresses mootness issues)
- Winnebago Cty. v. J.M., 381 Wis. 2d 28, 911 N.W.2d 41 (Wis. 2018) (clarifies burden of proof—clear and convincing—in recommitment proceedings)
- Metro. Assocs. v. City of Milwaukee, 379 Wis. 2d 141, 905 N.W.2d 784 (Wis. 2018) (explains the clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)