Waukesha County v. J.K.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
November 10, 2021
To:
Hon. William Domina
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Kelly K. Haag
Juvenile Clerk
Electronic Notice
Robert J. Mueller
Electronic Notice
Deborah B. Price
Electronic Notice
Pamela Moorshead
Electronic Notice
J.K.
Northview Heights
199 County Rd. DF
Juneau, WI 53039
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2018AP616-NM In the matter of the mental commitment of J.K.:
Waukesha County v. J.K. (L.C. #2016ME555)
Before Reilly, P.J.1
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
J.K. appeals from orders extending his mental commitment for twelve months on an
outpatient basis and authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment.2 His appellate
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.
2 The circuit court orders were entered on March 14, 2017. Thereafter, appointed counsel
commenced a no-merit appeal which was dismissed as moot in a May 11, 2018 order of this court. On
September 3, 2019, the Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily vacated this court’s order and directed that
the no-merit appeal should proceed. Appellate counsel filed a new no-merit report from the March 14,
2017 orders.
(continued)

No. 2018AP616-NM
2
counsel has filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32, and Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J.K. received a copy of the report, was advised of his right to
file a response, and has elected not to do so. Upon consideration of the report and an
independent review of the record, we conclude that the orders may be summarily affirmed
because there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
J.K. suffers from schizophrenia and was originally placed on mental commitment and
involuntary medication orders in 2016. Waukesha County filed a recommitment petition
alleging that J.K. continues to suffer from a mental illness, as well as significant memory
problems and serious physical health conditions; that he still denies having a mental illness and
delusions; and that given his history and lack of insight, his commitment should be extended.
Dr. Cary Kohlberg, a licensed psychiatrist, was appointed to examine J.K. and filed a
report concluding that J.K. satisfied the criteria for recommitment and the involuntary
administration of medication. Kohlberg testified at the recommitment hearing and his report was
admitted into evidence. Kohlberg testified that during his examination, J.K. was mildly
confused, but he was able to express his belief he had been misdiagnosed, had never experienced
any underlying mental illness, and does not currently need any mental health treatment.
Kohlberg opined that J.K. met the standard for recommitment because absent a court order, “it is
We observe that the transcript underlying the March 14, 2017 orders appears in the record at
No. 98, and is mistakenly labeled in the record index as “Transcript of 08-21-2017 recommitment
hearing….”

No. 2018AP616-NM
3
likely that he would stop psychiatric treatment, including that of antipsychotic medication[]” and
“quickly decompensate back to” his prior psychotic status. Kohlberg continued:
The reason he is doing well is because of primarily taking his
antipsychotic medication regularly. [J.K.] advised me if he were
off commitment he would not take antipsychotic medication
because he does not believe that he needs it. If that were to
happen, he would likely quickly have a psychotic decompensation
and likely develop symptoms he had in the fall of last year before
he was in treatment which resulted in a very poor ability to care for
himself, including his medical needs which resulted in severe
physical health problems, particularly heart problems requiring
emergent medical hospitalization. So all of these cascade of events
and severe health problems would likely quickly redevelop if he
were off treatment.
Regarding the need for an involuntary medication order, Kohlberg stated that he had
discussed the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives of antipsychotic medications with J.K.
Kohlberg opined that J.K. was incapable of expressing any understanding of those advantages,
disadvantages, and alternatives, and incapable of applying any understanding of these matters to
his own situation due to his mental illness, such that he could not make an informed choice as to
whether to accept or refuse those medications.
J.K. also testified at the hearing. He stated that before his original commitment, he was
regularly taking his medication for high blood pressure. He denied having schizophrenia and
said he did not need medication for any mental illness.
The no-merit report addresses whether the evidence offered was sufficient to extend
J.K.’s mental health commitment and to require his involuntary medication and treatment. The
no-merit report states the appropriate standard for each intervention. See WIS. STAT.
§ 51.20(1)(a)2. and (am) (recommitment); WIS. STAT. § 51.61(1)(g)4. (involuntary medication
and treatment). By Kohlberg’s report and testimony, the County met its burden to prove all

No. 2018AP616-NM
4
required facts by clear and convincing evidence. See § 51.20(13)(e). Additionally, the evidence
satisfies the applicable standards for recommitment and involuntary medication. See K.N.K. v.
Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d 190, 198, 407 N.W.2d 281 (Ct. App. 1987) (the application of the facts to
statutory recommitment requirements presents a question of law we review de novo); see also
Outagamie Cnty. v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶39, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607 (whether
the County has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden to prove the statutory elements for
an involuntary medication order is a question of law). There is no arguable merit to challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.3
Our review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Accordingly, this
court accepts the no-merit report, affirms the orders of the circuit court, and discharges appellate
counsel from having to further represent J.K. in this appeal. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the circuit court are summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
3 In Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, our
supreme court held that “going forward circuit courts in recommitment proceedings are to make specific
factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of [WIS. STAT.] § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the
recommitment is based.” Because the March 2017 orders in this case predate the April 2020 decision in
D.J.W., its holding does not apply. See Winnebago Cnty. v. S.H., 2020 WI App 46, ¶14, 393 Wis. 2d
511, 947 N.W.2d 761. The record, however, must contain evidence that links past dangerousness to the
substantial likelihood of recurring dangerousness absent an extension order. See id., ¶17. Here, although
the circuit court did not reference the statutory subdivision on which the recommitment is based, the court
explicitly accepted Kohlberg’s conclusions that J.K. did not recognize that he was ill, that he would
discontinue his medication absent a commitment order, and that he would return to the dangerous
behavior he exhibited in 2016 absent treatment and medication.

No. 2018AP616-NM
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Pamela Moorshead4 is relieved from further
representing J.K. in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
4 Attorney Leon Todd was originally appointed to represent J.K., and filed the no-merit report.
Todd left his position at the State Public Defender’s Office and Attorney Pamela Moorshead was
appointed as successor counsel.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals