Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
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.
January 25, 2012
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
A. John Voelker                                                                                                                                                   petition to review an adverse decision by the
Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                                  Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                                  and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                                  Cir. Ct. No.   2011ME8A
Appeal No.                                                                                    2011AP2499-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                                IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II
IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL COMMITMENT OF HARLAN H.:
MANITOWOC COUNTY,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V.
HARLAN H.,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Manitowoc County:
FRED H. HAZLEWOOD, Judge.   Affirmed.
¶1                                                                                            REILLY, J.1     Harlan H. appeals from his involuntary commitment
for mental health treatment pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.20.   Harlan argues that the
1  This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(d) (2009-10).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.




No.   2011AP2499-FT
evidence presented at his commitment hearing was insufficient to support his
commitment.   We conclude that the testimony at the hearing supported Harlan’s
commitment and thus affirm.
¶2                                                                                        The facts are not in dispute.   Harlan displayed paranoid behavior,
which  ultimately  led  to  a  911  call  resulting  in  his  emergency  detention  and
commitment.   Prior to the incident leading to his detention, Harlan had told his
wife that people were trying to harm her.   He put her in a headlock to get her to
listen to his warnings.   About two weeks later, when Harlan and his wife went out
to eat with Harlan’s family, Harlan yelled at his wife, close to her face.   Harlan’s
wife testified that Harlan was “acting strange” to the extent that someone called
the police because “he was scaring people in the restaurant.”   When the deputy
arrived,  Harlan  physically  resisted  the  deputy’s  attempts  to  detain  him.
Ultimately, the deputy took his Taser from its holster, showed it to Harlan, and
Harlan went with the deputy to the hospital.
¶3                                                                                        Two  doctors  testified  at  the  hearing  in  support  of  Harlan’s
commitment.   Dr. Robert Dickens, a psychiatrist, testified based on a review of
Harlan’s medical records and Dr. Dickens’ own interactions with Harlan.    He
opined that Harlan suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, with a  “history of a
system  of  bizarre  paranoid  delusions.”    Dr.  Dickens  testified  that               “at  times
[Harlan] has received orders to harm other people.”    Dr. Dickens opined that
“someone with that thought disorder is a potential danger to other people,” and
that                                                                                      “he is a danger.”    Dr. L.W. Cole, a psychologist, who evaluated Harlan
through  a  record  review  and  his  own  interview  with  Harlan,  supported
Dr. Dickens’ testimony, agreeing that Harlan “appear[ed] to be primarily a danger
to others.”   Additionally, Dr. Cole opined that Harlan posed a potential risk to
himself.
2




No.   2011AP2499-FT
¶4                                                                                      Based on the hearing testimony, the circuit court found Harlan was
mentally ill and was dangerous because he evidenced behavior within one or more
of the standards under WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1) or (1m).   The circuit court committed
Harlan to the care and custody of Manitowoc County for six months and ordered
medication and treatment.   Because the testimony at the final hearing supports the
circuit court’s order, we affirm.
¶5                                                                                      Whether the undisputed facts meet the statutory standard set forth in
WIS. STAT. § 51.20 is a question of law that we review de novo.   See Bracegirdle
v. Dep’t of DLR, 159 Wis. 2d 402, 421, 464 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1990).
¶6                                                                                      WISCONSIN  STAT.  § 51.20  governs  involuntary  commitment  for
treatment of  a person  who is mentally ill and dangerous.    Regarding danger,
subparagraph 51.20(1)(a)2.b. indicates that a person is dangerous if he or she:
[e]vidences 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.
The circuit court need not state explicitly that the evidence satisfies the statutory
standard; rather, this court “may assume that a missing finding was determined in
favor of the order or judgment.”   Hintz v. Olinger, 142 Wis. 2d 144, 149, 418
N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1987).
¶7                                                                                      Here,  the  evidence  supports  the  circuit  court’s  findings  and
subsequent order committing Harlan.   While the circuit court did not explicitly
indicate the subparagraph upon which it relied, the parties focus on WIS. STAT.
§ 51.20(1)(a)2.b.,  and  the circuit court’s comments  mirror  that subparagraph’s
language.   Reviewing the evidence, the circuit court noted Harlan’s physical act of
3




No.   2011AP2499-FT
grabbing his wife and putting her in a headlock.   The circuit court indicated that
“there is a dangerous aspect to this man’s illness, and that others are reasonable in
reacting  to  that  dangerousness.”    The  doctors’  testimony  supports  the  circuit
court’s findings.   In sum, the evidence supports the circuit court’s findings and the
application of subparagraph b.
¶8                                                                                        Finally,  we  note  that  Harlan  made  no  argument  regarding  the
validity of the medication order, even though he did include it in his point heading
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.   We need not address arguments broadly
stated but not specifically argued, Fritz v. McGrath, 146 Wis. 2d 681, 686, 431
N.W.2d 751 (Ct. App. 1988), and therefore do not address this issue.
By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
This   opinion   will   not   be   published.                                             See   WIS.   STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
4




No.   2011AP2499-FT

Download 2011ap002499-ft.pdf

Wisconsin Law