Kenosha Cnty. v. L. A.T. (In re L. A.T)

1

In the matter of the mental commitment of L.A.T.:

Kenosha County, Petitioner-Respondent, v. L.A.T., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2022AP603

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II

January 11, 2023

This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Kenosha County Cir. Ct. No. 2021ME171: JODI L. MEIER, Judge. Affirmed.

LAZAR J. ^[1]

¶1 L.A.T.^[2] appeals from orders of the trial court entered pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 51.20, for her civil commitment and for involuntary medication and treatment. L.A.T. asserts that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate colloquy before accepting her stipulation to the commitment and involuntary medication orders, that such a colloquy should be mandatory in all civil commitment cases and that her stipulation was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. She further asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that she was dangerous and that the trial court's findings were insufficient to establish the specific dangerousness she asserts is required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis.2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

¶2 This court concludes that colloquies between the trial court and those individuals who stipulate to civil commitment and/or involuntary medication orders are not mandatory in every case, that there was an adequate colloquy with L.A.T and that L.A.T.'s stipulation was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. This court further concludes that, due to the stipulation, sufficient evidence was presented to establish L.A.T.'s dangerousness. Finally, this court concludes that, while the requirement for specificity with respect to dangerousness pronounced in D.J.W. is applicable to initial commitments and not just to recommitments, there is no merit to L.A.T.'s final argument because L.A.T. knowingly entered into a stipulation as to all three elements (including dangerousness) required for commitment.

¶3 On October 10, 2021, L.A.T.-then in her early fifties-moved back to her parents' residence in Wisconsin from Colorado, where she had been living since early 2020. Her return was a surprise to her parents. They had financially supported L.A.T. while she was in Colorado, and they knew that the lease for the apartment she had been living in (cosigned by her father) had expired, but L.A.T. had exhibited "[e]xtreme anger" with her father in phone calls from Colorado. This anger had escalated to "harassment second to none," and L.A.T.'s parents had not had recent contact with her. L.A.T. was calm her first day home, but by the second day she appeared stressed, so her parents began locking their bedroom door on the third day. Her parents called crisis intervention because they felt L.A.T. was stressed, angry, and disorganized in her thoughts and speech.

¶4 Three days after her return, on October 13, L.A.T. had an argument with her parents and began following her father around the home as she tore up the crisis intervention paperwork. L.A.T. threw a roll of tape at her father, and when her parents fled the house, L.A.T. locked them out. L.A.T.'s parents again called a crisis intervention worker who then called the police. L.A.T. was agitated and uncooperative; ultimately, the police handcuffed her and brought her to an emergency room for medical evaluation and emergency involuntary civil commitment under Wis.Stat. § 51.15.

¶5 After probable cause to continue the case was found, L.A.T. requested a jury trial on her commitment, which took place on November 3, 2021. L.A.T.'s father testified regarding the October 13 incident, explaining that although L.A.T. had had issues with mental health in the past, he had never seen her so angry or violent before. He feared for his safety due to L.A.T.'s unpredictability, so he decided to quickly leave the house when L.A.T. started to walk to where he stood after she had thrown the tape at him. He further testified that L.A.T. pushed her mother (his wife) out of the house and pushed on the door when her mother's foot got caught in the doors.

¶6 Next, the state-appointed psychiatrist who had evaluated L.A.T., Dr. Sangita Patel, testified that L.A.T. suffered from mental illness (either bipolar disorder or schizophrenia); that she believed L.A.T. was treatable, based in part on the fact that L.A.T. had responded well to treatment in the past; and that L.A.T. "pose[d] a substantial risk of harm towards other people." Patel based these opinions upon L.A.T.'s aggression toward the community, the hospital nurse, and the staff at the psychiatric facility in which she had been placed for the several weeks since she was committed. Finally (outside the presence of the jury^[3]), the psychiatrist gave her opinion that psychotropic medications would have a therapeutic value for L.A.T. Patel's "Report of Examination," previously filed on October 22, 2021, was admitted as an exhibit in the trial.

¶7 After a lunch break in the trial, counsel for the County and for L.A.T. informed the trial court that L.A.T. was willing to stipulate to the commitment and involuntary medication orders. The trial court asked L.A.T. whether she heard what her attorney said, and she answered that she did. L.A.T. then said that she would like to see the stipulation "on paper," specifically what "[t]he medication is." The court explained that the "stipulation is agreeing to the … request" which was "the six-month commitment and … the medication order." The court further stated that it could not determine "what medication" because that is a question for the medical doctors, and that the involuntary medication order would provide that L.A.T. "could be administered medication without [her] consent."

¶8 At this point, L.A.T. conferred with her counsel off the record. She then confirmed to the trial court that she had sufficient time to consult with her attorney and that she had had her questions answered. L.A.T. replied, "I think. Yes." to the court's question of whether she was agreeing to the six-month commitment with the involuntary medication order "that could be used if needed." Her attorney confirmed that answer.

¶9 The trial court stated, on the record, that it found the grounds for commitment had been established as follows:

I did hear testimony from Dr. Patel and we all did this morning and based on her testimony I do find that grounds for the commitment have been established. Dr. Patel testified that [L.A.T.] does have a mental illness and that her behavior does meet one or more of the standards ... of the statutes.

Dr. Patel further testified that [L.A.T.] is a proper subject for treatment and that her condition is likely to be controlled with appropriate medication. That evidence presented by Dr. Patel who is qualified to make those determinations.

I do find first of all Dr. Patel to be credible in her testimony and I find the evidence to be clear and convincing of that and the parties are stipulating so I will order that [L.A.T.] be committed for six months from today's date ….

The maximum level of treatment shall be a locked inpatient facility of such as Winnebago or like facility until she's discharged by the doctors.

¶10 The trial court also found, based upon Patel's testimony at trial and the stipulation by the parties, that medication and treatment would have therapeutic value. The court further found that Patel explained the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication to L.A.T., but due to L.A.T.'s mental illness, there is a "lack of competency to refuse psychotropic medication or treatment because of the substantial incapability of applying an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to her condition in order to make an informed choice whether to accept or refuse psychotropic medication." Based upon that, the court ordered medication and treatment to be administered to L.A.T. regardless of her consent.

¶11 The trial court signed an order for involuntary medication and treatment on the day of the trial (November 3, 2021) and an order of commitment^[4]the next day. L.A.T. appeals both orders.

DISCUSSION

¶12 To issue a civil commitment order, a trial court must find that a petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the subject individual is mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to him/herself or others under at least one of the five statutory standards. D.J.W., 391 Wis.2d 231, ¶29; Wis.Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)1.-2., (13)(e). This is especially critical because "[i]t may be true that an erroneous commitment is sometimes as undesirable as an erroneous conviction." Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 428 (1979). So, courts are to take special care in this area of law.

¶13 The review of a civil commitment order-determining whether the petitioner has met the burden of proof-presents a mixed question of law and fact. Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2017 WI 57, ¶15, 375 Wis.2d 542, 895 N.W.2d 783. A trial court's findings of fact are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, id., and an appellate court will "accept reasonable inferences from the facts." Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶50, 366 Wis.2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109 (citation omitted). Whether those facts satisfy the statutory standards, however, is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶18, 390 Wis.2d 50, 937 N.W.2d 901.

I. Colloquies with the court are not required for every stipulation.

¶14 Both parties agree that there is an unpublished^[5] appellate decision directly on point, holding that trial courts are not required to conduct colloquies with people subject to Wis.Stat. ch. 51 proceedings to establish that they are knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily accepting a stipulation to...