Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40

M.W. had been subject to Chapter 51 commitment orders since 2006; Sheboygan County petitioned in Aug. 2020 to extend her commitment and to order involuntary medication.
At the recommitment hearing the County presented expert testimony and a caseworker; M.W. testified in opposition. The circuit court extended the commitment and ordered involuntary treatment.
On appeal the court of appeals held the circuit court violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. by failing to make specific factual findings tied to which subdivision of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2 supported dangerousness, and it reversed and remanded for further findings.
The only issue presented to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was the proper remedy for a D.J.W. violation (remand vs. outright reversal).
The Supreme Court majority held the recommitment order had expired and the circuit court therefore lacked competency to proceed on remand, so reversal (no remand) was the appropriate remedy; a dissent argued the record supports commitment and urged harmless-error review instead.

Issue	M.W. (petitioner) argument	Sheboygan County (respondent) argument	Held
Proper remedy for a D.J.W. violation	D.J.W. violations require outright reversal so the appellant gets a meaningful appeal.	Remand for the circuit court to make the missing D.J.W. findings; procedural lapse shouldn’t override substantive evidence.	Reversal without remand because the challenged recommitment order expired and the circuit court lacks competency to act on remand.
Court competency to hear remand proceedings after expiration	Remand may be futile if the order has expired; reversal preferred.	County argued remand appropriate where competency remains and public safety concerns persist.	Where the underlying commitment order expired, the circuit court lost competency to extend on remand; remand is inappropriate.
Role of harmless-error review for D.J.W. defects	(Pressed by M.W. and amicus) Remand is futile when competency is lost; otherwise appellate remedies should protect meaningful review.	County urged that D.J.W. errors are procedural and harmless where record supports recommitment.	Majority did not decide broader harmless-error applicability here; dissent contended harmless-error review should have been applied and the record supports affirmance.

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 391 Wis. 2d 231 (2020 WI 41) (directed that recommitment courts must make specific factual findings tied to the subdivision of § 51.20(1)(a)2 relied upon).
Portage County v. J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d 672 (2019 WI 54) (explains § 51.20(1)(am) pathway for recommitment when treatment has been administered immediately prior to proceedings).
Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 375 Wis. 2d 542 (2017 WI 57) (recommitment requires same three elements as initial commitment).
Rock County v. G.O.T., 151 Wis. 2d 629 (Ct. App. 1989) (circuit court lost competency where it failed to decide extension before prior commitment expired; appellate remedy was vacatur and dismissal).
Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 399 Wis. 2d 471 (2021 WI 85) (applied competency principle to hold reversal appropriate where recommitment order had expired).
Marathon County v. D.K., 390 Wis. 2d 50 (2020 WI 8) (emphasizes best practice that circuit courts articulate factual findings in Chapter 51 decisions to facilitate review).
Kraemer v. Kraemer, 67 Wis. 2d 319 (1975) (when findings are inadequate appellate options are affirm, reverse, or remand for findings).
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (due-process standard framing the seriousness of civil commitment proceedings).