recommitment hearing in Wisconsin

2024See id., ¶¶35-36 (stating that Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 and Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41 , ¶7 n.4, 391 Wis. 2d 231 , 942 N.W.2d 277 require that "in a recommitment hearing . . . an examiner's report must be received into evidence to be considered by the circuit court"). ¶10 Second, as Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has written in the past, I believe that this court should explain our reasons for dismissing a case as improvidently granted.

2024See id., ¶¶35-36 (stating that Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 and Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41 , ¶7 n.4, 391 Wis. 2d 231 , 942 N.W.2d 277 require that "in a recommitment hearing . . . an examiner's report must be received into evidence to be considered by the circuit court"). ¶10 Second, as Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has written in the past, I believe that this court should explain our reasons for dismissing a case as improvidently granted.

2023According to the County, behavior prior to, or earlier in, a commitment is a proper basis for a finding of current dangerousness under the recommitment standard because “[d]angerousness in an extension proceeding can and often must be based on the individual’s precommitment 12 No. 2022AP1394 behavior, coupled with an expert’s informed opinions and predictions.” Winnebago County v. S.H., 2020 WI App 46, ¶13 , 393 Wis. 2d 511 , 947 N.W.2d 761 .

2023According to the County, behavior prior to, or earlier in, a commitment is a proper basis for a finding of current dangerousness under the recommitment standard because “[d]angerousness in an extension proceeding can and often must be based on the individual’s precommitment 12 No. 2022AP1394 behavior, coupled with an expert’s informed opinions and predictions.” Winnebago County v. S.H., 2020 WI App 46, ¶13 , 393 Wis. 2d 511 , 947 N.W.2d 761 .

2026This alternate path for proving dangerousness in a recommitment hearing “recognizes that an individual receiving treatment may not have exhibited any recent overt acts or omissions demonstrating dangerousness because the treatment ameliorated such behavior, but if treatment were withdrawn, there may be a substantial likelihood such behavior would recur.” Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶19 , 386 Wis. 2d 672 , 927 N.W.2d 509 . ¶31 Although the alternate pathway set forth in WIS.

2026This alternate path for proving dangerousness in a recommitment hearing “recognizes that an individual receiving treatment may not have exhibited any recent overt acts or omissions demonstrating dangerousness because the treatment ameliorated such behavior, but if treatment were withdrawn, there may be a substantial likelihood such behavior would recur.” Portage County v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶19 , 386 Wis. 2d 672 , 927 N.W.2d 509 . ¶31 Although the alternate pathway set forth in WIS.

2024See id., ¶¶35-36 (stating that Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 and Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41 , ¶7 n.4, 391 Wis. 2d 231 , 942 N.W.2d 277 require that "in a recommitment hearing . . . an examiner's report must be received into evidence to be considered by the circuit court"). ¶10 Second, as Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has written in the past, I believe that this court should explain our reasons for dismissing a case as improvidently granted.

2024See id., ¶¶35-36 (stating that Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, ¶24 , 387 Wis. 2d 333 , 929 N.W.2d 140 and Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41 , ¶7 n.4, 391 Wis. 2d 231 , 942 N.W.2d 277 require that "in a recommitment hearing . . . an examiner's report must be received into evidence to be considered by the circuit court"). ¶10 Second, as Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has written in the past, I believe that this court should explain our reasons for dismissing a case as improvidently granted.

2022To prevail in a recommitment hearing, 6 No. 2022AP286 the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject is: “(1) mentally ill; (2) a proper subject for treatment; and (3) dangerous to themselves or others.” Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, ¶¶17, 18 , 402 Wis. 2d 1 , 974 N.W.2d 733 .

2022To prevail in a recommitment hearing, 6 No. 2022AP286 the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject is: “(1) mentally ill; (2) a proper subject for treatment; and (3) dangerous to themselves or others.” Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, ¶¶17, 18 , 402 Wis. 2d 1 , 974 N.W.2d 733 .

2023See Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶28 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 (due process requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous).

2023See Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶28 , 390 Wis. 2d 50 , 937 N.W.2d 901 (due process requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous).

2019We reasoned that "[t]his description of the purpose of the recommitment hearing and the evidence to be presented support the respondent's argument that at the recommitment hearing the circuit court continues to receive evidence in the same case ." Serocki , 163 Wis. 2d at 160 , 471 N.W.2d 49 (emphasis added).

2019We reasoned that "[t]his description of the purpose of the recommitment hearing and the evidence to be presented support the respondent's argument that at the recommitment hearing the circuit court continues to receive evidence in the same case ." Serocki , 163 Wis. 2d at 160 , 471 N.W.2d 49 (emphasis added).

2023G.O.T. v. Rock County, 151 Wis. 2d 629 , 636, 445 N.W.2d 697 (Ct. App. 1989). ¶16 Catherine argues that the circuit court impermissibly delayed the recommitment hearing.

2023G.O.T. v. Rock County, 151 Wis. 2d 629 , 636, 445 N.W.2d 697 (Ct. App. 1989). ¶16 Catherine argues that the circuit court impermissibly delayed the recommitment hearing.

2026However, given the substance of the mother’s testimony and T.R.B.’s statements to Dr. Taylor, I conclude that the circuit court’s reference to the number of calls T.R.B. made to law enforcement and the detail about the specific threats to the parents was harmless error because there is not a “‘reasonable possibility’ that the error contributed to the outcome of the action or the proceeding at issue.” Martindale, 246 Wis. 2d 67, ¶71 (citation omitted). ¶42 Niles’s testimony also supports the circuit court’s factual findings and its dangerousness determination.

2024See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kostich, 2010 WI 136, ¶16 , 330 Wis. 2d 378 , 793 N.W.2d 494 ("[T]he existence of a lawyer/client relationship is determined principally by the reasonable expectations of the person seeking the lawyer's advice."). 5 No. 2023AP533 the recommitment hearing: M.A.C.'s case manager and the two court-appointed doctors. ¶13 In the days leading up to the hearing, both court- appointed doctors filed examination reports.

2024See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kostich, 2010 WI 136, ¶16 , 330 Wis. 2d 378 , 793 N.W.2d 494 ("[T]he existence of a lawyer/client relationship is determined principally by the reasonable expectations of the person seeking the lawyer's advice."). 5 No. 2023AP533 the recommitment hearing: M.A.C.'s case manager and the two court-appointed doctors. ¶13 In the days leading up to the hearing, both court- appointed doctors filed examination reports.

2024See Walworth County v. M.R.M., 2023 WI 59, ¶24 , 408 Wis. 2d 316 , 992 N.W.2d 809 ("[T]he circuit court must hold a hearing on the petition for extension before the previous order expires or it loses competency to extend the commitment." (quoted source omitted)). ¶48 Elsewhere in § 51.20, the legislature provides evidence that default judgment should not be available in recommitment proceedings.

2024See Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 ("In construing or interpreting a statute the court is not at liberty to disregard the plain, clear words of the statute."); Denny, 373 Wis. 2d 390, ¶70 . 16 No. 2023AP533 ¶36 We hold that under our statutes, a petitioner must provide notice of a recommitment hearing to the subject individual and providing notice to counsel only is not enough. 2.

2024See Jorgensen, 310 Wis. 2d 138, ¶21 (“Wisconsin courts have consistently used [a] constitutional error standard in determining whether to invoke the plain error rule.”) (internal quotation marks and quoted source omitted).

2024See, e.g., Amazon Logistics, Inc. v. LIRC, 2024 WI 15, ¶3 , 411 Wis. 2d 166 , 4 N.W.3d 294 (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., concurring).

2022The Supreme Court has recognized previous acts of violent behavior as being “an important indicator of future violent tendencies.” See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 323 (1993); see also Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997).

2022The Supreme Court has recognized previous acts of violent behavior as being “an important indicator of future violent tendencies.” See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 323 (1993); see also Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 (1997).

2022See Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223, ¶10 , 267 Wis. 2d 310 , 671 N.W.2d 377 .

2022See Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223, ¶10 , 267 Wis. 2d 310 , 671 N.W.2d 377 .

2022See State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999) (“[T]he [forfeiture] rule is one of judicial administration and ... appellate courts have authority to ignore the [forfeiture].”). 10 No. 2019AP2134 “unquestionably had a [statutory and constitutional] right to appear at the Extension Hearing,” it concluded that this guarantee has not been found to be the “same” as the “guarantee [of] the right to appear in a criminal trial” and that “even constitutionally-protected rights” “may be waived or forfeited.” Id., ¶¶33-34.

2022See State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999) (“[T]he [forfeiture] rule is one of judicial administration and ... appellate courts have authority to ignore the [forfeiture].”). 10 No. 2019AP2134 “unquestionably had a [statutory and constitutional] right to appear at the Extension Hearing,” it concluded that this guarantee has not been found to be the “same” as the “guarantee [of] the right to appear in a criminal trial” and that “even constitutionally-protected rights” “may be waived or forfeited.” Id., ¶¶33-34.

2020See Royster- Clark, Inc. v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc., 2006 WI 46, ¶12 , 290 Wis. 2d 264 , 714 N.W.2d 530 (“Moreover, we search the record not for evidence opposing the circuit court’s decision, but for evidence supporting it.”) A transcript from a previous recommitment hearing regarding L.E. – which involved the same circuit judge who made the decision now on appeal – contains testimony from a psychiatrist which details the dangerousness L.E. exhibits when her treatment is withdrawn.

2020See Royster- Clark, Inc. v. Olsen’s Mill, Inc., 2006 WI 46, ¶12 , 290 Wis. 2d 264 , 714 N.W.2d 530 (“Moreover, we search the record not for evidence opposing the circuit court’s decision, but for evidence supporting it.”) A transcript from a previous recommitment hearing regarding L.E. – which involved the same circuit judge who made the decision now on appeal – contains testimony from a psychiatrist which details the dangerousness L.E. exhibits when her treatment is withdrawn.

2020See State v. Peppertree Resorts Villas, Inc., 2002 WI App 207, ¶19 , 257 Wis. 2d 421 , 651 N.W.2d 345 . ¶30 As was repeated often throughout the recommitment hearing, Marmor’s and Dr. Bales’ testimony was based on their experiences treating and working with Rachel, such that their opinions and predictions had proper foundation and were not pure conjecture.

2020See State v. Peppertree Resorts Villas, Inc., 2002 WI App 207, ¶19 , 257 Wis. 2d 421 , 651 N.W.2d 345 . ¶30 As was repeated often throughout the recommitment hearing, Marmor’s and Dr. Bales’ testimony was based on their experiences treating and working with Rachel, such that their opinions and predictions had proper foundation and were not pure conjecture.