### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 8, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2021AP324 Cir. Ct. No. 2019ME97 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III

I N THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL COMMITMENT OF L. C. E.:

O UTAGAMIE C OUNTY ,
P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V .
L. C. E.,

R ESPONDENT - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Outagamie County:
VINCENT R. BISKUPIC , Judge. Reversed.

¶ 1 HRUZ, J. 1 Laure n 2 appeals from an order extending her involuntary
commitmen t under W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 51 and an order for involuntary medication and

1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2) (2019

- 20). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019

- 20 version unless otherwise noted.No. 2021AP324

2 treatment. Lauren argues that the circuit court’s ruling at her recommitment hearing failed to identify the subdivision paragraph (s) u nder W IS

. S TAT

. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which it based its dangerousness determination , in
contravention of Langlade County v. D.J.W. , 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942
N.W.2d 277. Lauren also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing
that she was curr ently dangerous under any of the standards set forth in § 51.20(1)(a)2. We agree that the court failed to make the specific findings mandated by D.J.W. , and we therefore reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Lauren was involuntarily committed pursuant t o W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 51
in April 2019 , and she was subsequently recommi tted in October of that year. On October 8, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing on Outagamie County’s second petition for Lauren’s recommitment.

¶ 3 Kim Luke, a community support specialist for Out a gamie County
who monitored Lauren ’s status during her W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 51 commitment s , submitted a letter to the circuit court recommend ing an extension of Lauren ’s
commitment

. Luke testified during the recommitment hea ring that Lauren had been present ing symptoms of schizophrenia since her commitment in 2018, including be ing “psychotic, paranoid, believ [ing] that she ’s speaking to God” and “believ [ing] that people are out to hurt her. ” Luke further explained that a s a result of Lauren ’s medication regimen, “ her symptoms have re ally become manageable for her. She’ s no longer presenting with those types of symptoms due

2 For ease of reading, we refer to the appellant in this confidential matter u sing a pseudonym, rather than her initials.No. 2021AP324

3 to her pretty extensive medication .” Luke testified that Lauren consistently states
she will not c onti nue taking her medication if her commitment is withdrawn , although Luke did state that Lauren had a legal guardian and that her residential
staff monitors her medication

. Luke also testified that without the medication , s he
believed Lauren would be pr one to anger, have diffic ulty assessing her choices,
and be unable to act clearly.

¶ 4 Relating to dangerousness, Luke testified that before Lauren began taking medication , Lauren had a “pretty lengthy history of criminal issues, including theft, disorderly conduct and battery , ” an d that s he believed without
commitment Lauren would be a danger to herself or others

. Luke concluded that
if Lauren “ were paranoid enough and psychotic enough she could believe that

som eone was trying to harm her who really wasn’ t and she would harm them in
self [

- ] defense. ”

¶ 5 The other witness at the recommitment hearing was Lauren ’s treating psychiatrist, J.R. Musu nuru . He testified th at Lauren had originally been committed because she was “very confused and violent” and “had been complaining of hear ing voices, seeing some visions at times , ” although Musunuru provided no specific details regarding any such violence. Musunuru concluded
that Lauren ha d schizophrenia and noted tha t she had “extremely benefitt ed” from
her medication. However, he testified that because Lauren “strongly believes” she
does not have a mental illness , she constantly requests to be taken off of her
medication

. Because Lauren cannot understand her mental illness or make an
informed decisi on regarding her medication options, Musunuru concluded that an involuntary medication order would be appropriate. Musunuru further concluded
that Lauren can be a danger to hers elf or others as a result of her impaired judgment , as evidenced by her past dangerous behaviors.No. 2021AP324

4 ¶ 6 Based on the testimony at the hearing, t he circuit court concluded
that Lauren had a mental illness , that there was a need for treatment, and that she
lacked insight into her medication regimen

. In discussing its findings , the court
stated , in relevant part :

Contem poraneous to this hearing there haven’ t been the inci dents that have been previously desc ribed in the art icle

— or in the file from the past hearing, includin g some of the criminal behavior towards others. Ther e is also at least some history of behavior towards h erself including jumping out of a window, I think it was second story, or approxima tely som e

— so there is the history of behaviors to wards others and herself is not contemporaneous to this hearing, but historically it does still have relevance as the Court decides whether this should be an extension or not

. [ 3 ]

While acknowledging that Lauren deserved “credit for the improvements she’s made over time” and that “there’s been progress,” t he court summarized its conclusions on dangerousness by stating: “ If treatment were withdrawn, she would be a danger to herself or others man ifested in p art

— in part from historic incidents, although not recent, at least recent enough to still have rele vance in the
Court’ s eyes. ”

¶ 7 The circuit cou rt extended Lauren ’s commitment for a twelv e

- month period , and it entered an order for involun tary medication and treatment. Lauren now appeals.

3 Lauren strongly disputes that she previously jumped out of a window , arguing that she never did so , and that no evidence was presented at the recommitment hearing to that effect. The statement of emergency de tention and attached police reports filed in March 2019 before Lauren’s initial commitment confirm that Lauren did not actually jump out of a window, but do state that Lauren had called 911 because of chest pains, and that she believed people were in her b asement and wanted to hurt her. Additionally, these documents note that Lauren’s mother and a crisis worker each attested to Lauren’s attempt to jump out of a window earlier that night. None of these facts, however, were presented at the recommitment hearing. This discrepancy is ultimately not dispositive to the outcome of th is case , however

.No. 2021AP324

5 DISCUSSION

¶ 8 Lauren argues that the circuit court failed to adhere to the requirement established in D.J.W. that “going forward circuit courts in recommitment proceedings are to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of [ W IS

. S TAT

. ] § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” D.J.W. , 391 Wis. 2d 231 , ¶ 40. She argue s the court failed to specify one or more of the subdivision paragraphs on which her recommitment was based, instead concluding only generally that she was “ a danger to herself or others manifested in part

— in part from historic incidents

. ”

¶ 9 We agree that the circuit court failed to meet D.J.W. ’s requirements because it did not specify the subdivision paragraph (s) on which Lauren ’s

re commitment was based or make specific factual findings related to the applicable subdivision paragraph(s)

. Following D.J.W. , our supreme court requires circuit courts to specify a subdivision paragraph in order to provide clarity and enhanced protection for patients. Id. , ¶ ¶ 40 , 42

. Indeed, the County admits that the court failed to make the specific findings required by D.J.W. , but it
nevertheless argues that the court’s findings were still supported by evidence.
Even if evidence was presented at the hearing that could have supported a dangerousness f

inding , that result does not modify the court’s obligation

— as mandated by our supreme court

— to be specific as to the basis for its dangerousness determination. The court in D

. J

. W

. reasone d that this specificity
would “clarify issues raised on appeal of recommitment orders and ensure the soundness of judicial decision making,” as well as avoid the “ guesswork ” inherent in determining under which subdivision paragraph of W IS

. S TAT

. § 51.20(1)(a )2

. a circuit court might have intended to make its findings wit hout those specific
references

. See i

d. , ¶ ¶ 44

- 45

.No. 2021AP324

6 ¶ 10 Regarding the proper relief in light of th e circuit court’s failure to make specific factual findings , Lauren requests that we vacate the orders to which she is subject . Conversely, t h e County asks us to remand the case for a new hearing to allow the circuit court to make specific factual findings with reference to the appropriate s ubdivision paragraph(s) under W IS

. S TAT

. § 51.20(1)(a)2. o n which it bases its determination. We conclude that r eversal without remand is the appropriate remedy here. Because the recommitment order was entered almost a
year ago, Lauren has not been afforded the clarity and additional protections guaranteed by D.J.W. for that entire period, and rem edying the violation now would be “far too late to be meaningful.” See Eau Claire Cnty. v. J.M.P. , No. 2020AP2014

- FT, unpublished slip op. ¶22 (WI App June 22, 2021)

. 4 The remedy of reversal also ensures that Lauren is not deprived of her right to a

mean ingful appeal, as it would be almost impossible for Lauren to appeal from the
results of a new hearing , if necessary, before her current recommitment order likely becomes moot. See i d

. , ¶23

. Accordingly, we determine that reversal is the appropriate remedy even though the recommitment order at issue does not expire
until early October 2021 . We therefore reverse Lauren ’s recommitment order and
the corresponding order for involuntary treatmen t and medication. 5

4 See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(3)(b) (permitting the citation of authored, unpublished opinions issued after July 1, 2009, for their persuasive value).

5 Althoug h Lauren also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence determining that she is dangerous, we need not address all issues raised by the parties when one is dispositive. See Turner v. Taylor , 2003 WI App 256, ¶1 n.1, 268 Wis. 2d 628, 673 N.W.2d 716

. Addi tionally, we decline to address Lauren ’s preemptive mootness argument because we are releasing this opinion before Lauren ’s recommitment order expires or another extension is entered by the circuit court.No. 2021AP324

7 By the Court.

— Order s reversed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.