2024 WI 30
Wis.2024Background
- M.A.C. was involuntarily committed in Waukesha County in 2020 and placed on outpatient medication; the commitment was twice extended and a one-year extension was set to expire Aug. 31, 2022.
- 43 days before expiration the County filed a petition to extend commitment; the petition listed M.A.C. as "Homeless" and asked that documents be sent to her case manager.
- A recommitment hearing was scheduled; the State Public Defender appointed counsel for M.A.C., but neither the County nor the appointed examiners could contact M.A.C. before the hearing.
- Two court-appointed doctors prepared reports without interviewing M.A.C.; both indicated she was unable to understand or apply information about medication.
- At the August 16, 2022 hearing M.A.C. did not appear; her appointed counsel attended but had not spoken to her. The circuit court found M.A.C. in default, relied on the doctors’ reports, ordered a 12‑month recommitment and involuntary medication.
- The court of appeals affirmed relying on Waukesha County v. S.L.L.; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed on three grounds (notice, default, insufficient evidence for involuntary medication).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.A.C.) | Defendant's Argument (Waukesha County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute requires personal notice to the subject for recommitment hearings | §51.20(10)(a) requires notice to the subject; notice to counsel only is insufficient | Serving counsel satisfies notice requirement under civil rules (§801.14) and §51.20 incorporates civil procedure | Court: Statute’s plain text ("the subject individual and his or her counsel") requires notice to the individual; notice to counsel alone is not enough; overrules contrary holdings in S.L.L. |
| Whether court may enter default judgment when subject absent but counsel present | Default is not an available remedy for recommitment or involuntary medication; statute offers detention or adjournment procedures instead | Civil default procedures apply (incorporated into ch. 51); default is a permissible response to nonappearance | Court: Default judgment is not permitted in recommitment or involuntary‑medication proceedings; detention order/adjournment and prompt hearing are the statutorily prescribed responses |
| Whether County proved entitlement to involuntary medication by clear and convincing evidence | County failed to prove the statutorily required showing that the advantages/disadvantages and alternatives of the particular medication were explained to the individual | Court could rely on filed examiner reports and treatment record to satisfy the requirement | Court: County’s evidence was insufficient—examiners did not speak to M.A.C. and did not show the required explanation was given; involuntary‑medication order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 387 Wis. 2d 333 (Wis. 2019) (previously held notice to counsel could suffice and default available; overruled by this decision on those points)
- Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 349 Wis. 2d 148 (Wis. 2013) (describes clear‑and‑convincing standard and incompetence‑to‑refuse‑medication framework)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (civil commitment requires heightened evidentiary protections given liberty interests)
- Split Rock Hardwoods, Inc. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 253 Wis. 2d 238 (Wis. 2002) (default judgment is an extreme sanction; courts should, where possible, provide a day in court)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation starts with plain text and context)