Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.)
929 N.W.2d 140
Wis.2019Background
- Waukesha County sought a 12-month extension of Ms. L.'s involuntary mental-health commitment after she left inpatient care under a conditional transfer, missed treatments, and failed to keep the county apprised of her address.
- Notice of the extension hearing was mailed to Ms. L.'s last known address (a homeless shelter) and to her appointed counsel; the mailing to Ms. L. was returned undeliverable; counsel received notice and attended; Ms. L. did not appear.
- At the recommitment hearing the circuit court found Ms. L. in default, relied on physician reports and the county's petition, extended her commitment for 12 months, authorized involuntary medication, and issued a writ of capias.
- The circuit court later canceled the extension order and writ because Ms. L. remained unlocated; she appealed; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court treated three issues (personal jurisdiction/notice; authority to enter default in Chapter 51; sufficiency of evidence) as moot but addressed the first two, affirming the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction/notice for extension hearing | Extension petition initiates a new proceeding requiring personal service and petition content meeting §51.20(1) to confer jurisdiction | Recommitment is a continuation of the original commitment; notice to counsel (and mailing to last known address) satisfied statutory and due-process requirements | Recommitment is a continuation of the original proceeding; service on counsel (per §801.14(2)) and mailed notice were statutorily and constitutionally sufficient; court had jurisdiction |
| Required content of notice for extension petition | County had to serve a jurisdiction‑conferring factual statement like an initial petition under §51.20(1) | Extension proceedings are governed by §51.20(10)–(13); no statutory requirement to serve an initial-petition-style factual recitation in advance | No statutory basis requiring the petition to include the §51.20(1) probable-cause factual recitation for an extension; existing notice sufficed |
| Method of service when respondent absent/homeless | Mailing to last-known address was inadequate when the sender knew the address was ineffective; additional steps required (Jones v. Flowers) | Where court already had personal jurisdiction and counsel received notice, service on counsel is proper; sending to last-known address was reasonable under circumstances | Service on counsel was sufficient under §801.14(2); due process not violated when court retained jurisdiction and counsel had notice; mailing to last-known address did not render notice unconstitutional |
| Use of default judgment in Chapter 51 recommitment | Chapter 51 prescribes the remedy when respondent fails to appear (§51.20(10)(d): may issue detention order and hold hearing within 7 days), so default judgment is not permitted | Chapter 51 incorporates civil rules except where inconsistent; §806.02(5) allows default where party has appeared and then fails to appear; no mandatory Chapter 51 provision precluding default | Courts may enter default under §806.02(5) at extension hearings when jurisdiction and proper notice exist; §51.20(10)(d) is permissive and does not displace default authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (civil commitment implicates significant liberty interests requiring due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, additional reasonable steps may be required)
- State v. Smith, 283 Wis. 2d 57 (2005) (personal jurisdiction required for in personam judgments)
- State ex rel. Serocki v. Circuit Court for Clark Cty., 163 Wis. 2d 152 (1991) (recommitment hearings are continuations of the original commitment proceeding)
- Walworth County v. Spalding, 111 Wis. 2d 19 (1983) (statute prescribing mandatory procedure for failure to appear displaces other remedies)