Walworth County v. P.C.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 13, 2022
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2021AP2090-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2021ME86

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL COMMITMENT OF P.C.:

WALWORTH COUNTY,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

P.C.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Walworth County:
KRISTINE E. DRETTWAN, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 KORNBLUM, J.1 P.C. appeals from a commitment order entered
pursuant to WIS. STAT. ch. 51. P.C. argues that Walworth County (“the County”)

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(d) (2019-20).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2021AP2090-FT

failed to establish dangerousness pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2. We
conclude that the evidence supports the circuit court’s findings. Accordingly, we
affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On July 19, 2021, a three-party petition for examination was filed
against P.C. pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(b) and (c). At a probable cause
hearing, the circuit court found probable cause to believe that P.C. was mentally ill,
a proper subject for treatment, and a danger to himself or others. The circuit court
ordered that P.C. be held at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute until a final
commitment hearing and ordered an evaluation by two mental health professionals.
Prior to the final commitment hearing, Dr. Leslie Taylor and Dr. Marshall Bales
filed examiner reports.

¶3 A final commitment hearing was held on August 4, 2021. Bales
testified at the hearing, telling the circuit court that P.C. suffered from
schizophrenia, paranoia, and delusions. Bales testified that P.C. was a proper
subject for treatment and presented a danger to others, particularly P.C.’s father.
Bales stated that P.C. exhibited multiple threatening behaviors towards his father
and opined that P.C. “is going to be unable to care for his basic needs on his own
and if he doesn’t get help, I’m not sure he can return to live with his father and that
means he’s going to be homeless.” Bales further stated that P.C. denied having a
mental illness, had “gross impairment of insight and judgment,” and refused to
acknowledge the need for medication.

¶4 T.C., P.C.’s father, also testified, describing multiple incidents that
caused T.C. to fear for his safety. T.C. testified that P.C. had been living with him
since November 2020. T.C. testified that while on a long-distance drive with P.C.,

2
No. 2021AP2090-FT

P.C. threated to jump out of the moving vehicle multiple times. T.C. also testified
that in June 2021, while walking down a flight of stairs, three books fell on him
from a shelf above the stairway. T.C. said that he did not actually see P.C. push the
books, but said that he looked up after the books struck him and saw P.C. looking
down at him and smiling. T.C. described another incident in which he was
ascending the staircase with P.C. behind him. T.C. testified that he felt a “swipe”
at his legs, which almost cause him to fall while holding empty glass liquor bottles.
T.C. stated that he retrieved the empty bottles from P.C.’s bedroom and P.C. “wasn’t
happy.” T.C. further testified that he feared P.C. would poison him because P.C.
stated that he could “put something” in T.C.’s vitamin and medication bottles, as
well as in T.C.’s CPAP machine. T.C. testified that P.C. refused to let him sleep
one night and knocked on T.C.’s locked bedroom door until P.C.’s knuckles bled.
T.C. stated that he was concerned for his safety because P.C. had grabbed and tried
to choke him several years ago.

¶5 T.C. also described two incidents of P.C. wandering off on walks in
the middle of the night. T.C. stated that in May 2021, he received a phone call in
the middle of the night from someone asking T.C. to pick P.C. up from a location
approximately ten miles from T.C.’s home. T.C. stated that P.C. walked most of
the night without reflective gear or flashlights. T.C. also stated that the following
week he received a phone call from the Lake Geneva Police Department asking T.C.
to pick P.C. up after police found P.C. walking in the middle of the night. T.C.
stated further that on other occasions, P.C. has “gone from door to door knocking
on people’s doors at 6:00 in the morning scaring people.”

¶6 The circuit court found both Bales and T.C. credible and determined
that P.C. was a proper subject for commitment as he had a treatable mental illness.
The circuit court stated that “the County has clearly met by clear and convincing

3
No. 2021AP2090-FT

evidence that [P.C.] is dangerous under the standards of Chapter 51,” and entered
an order committing P.C. for six months, as well as an order for involuntary
medication and treatment during the period of his commitment. This appeal
follows.

DISCUSSION

¶7 On appeal, P.C. argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish
by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to himself or others, and that
the circuit court failed to make sufficient factual findings pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 51.20(1)(a)2.a.-e. The County contends that P.C.’s appeal is moot because the
initial commitment order at issue has expired.

¶8 We generally do not consider moot issues. See State ex rel. Olson v.
Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶3, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425. An issue is moot
when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy. Id.
Although P.C.’s commitment order has expired, we conclude that regardless of
whether P.C.’s appeal is moot, there is sufficient evidence to support the circuit
court’s dangerousness finding. See Barrows v. American Fam. Ins. Co., 2014 WI
App 11, ¶9, 352 Wis. 2d 436, 842 N.W.2d 508 (2013) (“An appellate court need not
address every issue raised by the parties when one issue is dispositive.”). We
address the merits of P.C.’s arguments and disagree that the County failed to
establish dangerousness under WIS. STAT. §51.20(1)(a)2.

¶9 WISCONSIN STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2. provides five different means of
demonstrating that a person is dangerous. The statute states that an individual is
“dangerous” if any of the following is fulfilled:

4
No. 2021AP2090-FT

a. Evidences a substantial probability of physical harm to
himself or herself as manifested by evidence of recent threats
of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.

b. Evidences a substantial probability of physical harm to
other individuals as manifested by evidence of recent
homicidal or other violent behavior, or by evidence that
others are placed in reasonable fear of violent behavior and
serious physical harm to them, as evidenced by a recent overt
act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm ….

c. Evidences such impaired judgment, manifested by
evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there
is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury
to himself or herself or other individuals ….

d. Evidences behavior manifested by recent acts or
omissions that, due to mental illness, he or she is unable to
satisfy basic needs for nourishment, medical care, shelter or
safety without prompt and adequate treatment so that a
substantial probability exists that death, serious physical
injury, serious physical debilitation, or serious physical
disease will imminently ensue unless the individual receives
prompt and adequate treatment for this mental illness ….

e. For an individual, other than an individual who is alleged
to be drug dependent or developmentally disabled, after the
advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to
accepting a particular medication or treatment have been
explained to him or her and because of mental illness,
evidences either incapability of expressing an understanding
of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting medication
or treatment and the alternatives, or substantial incapability
of applying an understanding of the advantages,
disadvantages, and alternatives to his or her mental illness in
order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept or
refuse medication or treatment; and evidences a substantial
probability, as demonstrated by both the individual’s
treatment history and his or her recent acts or omissions, that
the individual needs care or treatment to prevent further
disability or deterioration and a substantial probability that
he or she will, if left untreated, lack services necessary for
his or her health or safety and suffer severe mental,
emotional, or physical harm that will result in the loss of the
individual’s ability to function independently in the
community or the loss of cognitive or volitional control over
his or her thoughts or actions ….

5
No. 2021AP2090-FT

Id.; see also, Langlade Cnty. v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶30, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942
N.W.2d 277.

¶10 The record supports the circuit court’s determination that P.C. was
dangerous under WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2. Based on the testimony of the
witnesses, the circuit court found that P.C. posed a danger both to T.C. and himself.
The circuit court discussed T.C.’s testimony that P.C. pushed and tripped him,
pushed books onto his head, and threatened to poison him multiple times. The
circuit court also referenced T.C.’s testimony that P.C. would bang on T.C.’s locked
bedroom door all night to the point of bloodying his fists. The circuit court
discussed the harm P.C. posed to himself by referencing P.C.’s actions of going
door to door in the middle of the night, scaring people in the early morning hours,
and walking on dark county roads without reflective gear. The circuit court noted
that P.C.’s excursions could have resulted in a scared resident confronting P.C. with
a weapon. The circuit court found P.C.’s various behaviors consistent with
Bales’s assessment that P.C. did not comprehend the need for treatment, had
severely impaired judgment, and posed a legitimate danger to both his father and
himself. The record supports the circuit court’s finding that there was clear and
convincing evidence that P.C.’s untreated mental illness and his impaired judgment
created a substantial probability of harm to himself or others.2

2
P.C. also argues that the circuit court failed cite to the specific subsections of WIS. STAT.
§ 51.20(1)(a)2., and thus failed to comply with the supreme court’s decision in Langlade County
v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶30, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. This case is distinguishable from
D.J.W. because although the circuit court did not specifically reference each statutory subsection,
the court’s findings were specific, tracked the statutory criteria, and are supported by the record.

6
No. 2021AP2090-FT

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the involuntary commitment
order.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

7