Milwaukee County v. K.M. ( 2021 )

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, 2021
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. 2019AP1166 Cir. Ct. No. 2015ME2083
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I
IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF K.M.:
MILWAUKEE COUNTY,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V.
K.M.,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
DAVID L. BOROWSKI, Judge. Dismissed.
No. 2019AP1166
¶1 DONALD, J.1 “Kristin”2 appeals a WIS. STAT. ch. 51 extension
order and an order denying a postdisposition motion. We conclude that Kristin’s
challenges are moot and decline to reach the merits.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On April 20, 2016, the County filed a notice of motion and motion to
extend Kristin’s commitment. The notice stated that the court would hold a
hearing on May 6, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.
¶3 The same day, the court entered an order appointing two doctors to
examine Kristin. The order listed Kristin’s final hearing date as May 6, 2016, but
did not indicate the time of the hearing.
¶4 On May 6, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., the court called the case. Defense
counsel stated his appearance:
Matt Lynch for [Kristin]. She’s not here. Your Honor, it’s
my understanding that she was served. I spoke to her on
the phone yesterday. I’m ready to proceed.
The court responded “fine” and the hearing proceeded.
¶5 At the hearing, the County called two witnesses. The first witness,
Steve Seidl, a clinical coordinator at the Whole Health Clinical Group, testified
that he oversaw the “treatment team that provides services to [Kristin].” Seidl met
with Kristin and reviewed records related to her treatment. Seidl testified that as a
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
For ease of reading we refer to K.M. by the pseudonym used in her appellate brief.
2
No. 2019AP1166
result of the medication and housing provided, Kristin “seems fairly stable at this
time in [this] particular setting.” Seidl further testified that he sought
recommitment because Kristin did not show insight into her illness, did not
believe Whole Health was there to help her, and without a commitment, she would
stop services and medications. Seidl testified that when Kristin is not on
medication, she has become homeless, failed to care for herself, and has become
“verbally aggressive, threatening to other people.” In addition, Seidl testified that,
according to her records, Kristin urinated on herself while standing on a corner
and said “she was going to cut her [sister-in-law] with a knife, or slash her with a
knife, something to that effect.”
¶6 Dr. Charles Rainey, a forensic psychiatrist appointed by the circuit
court, testified that Kristin has schizoaffective disorder and is a proper subject for
treatment. Upon questioning from counsel whether there was a substantial
likelihood that Kristin “would become a proper subject for commitment if the
treatment were withdrawn,” Dr. Rainey replied yes. Dr. Rainey explained that
when Kristin’s “commitment was—got dropped, she decompensated and had to be
brought in on an ED, and required a court order before she would start taking
medications.” Counsel for Kristin did not cross-examine Dr. Rainey or call any
witnesses.
¶7 After the defense rested, the circuit court stated that “[t]he County
has met their burden. I’ll order a twelve-month extension.”
¶8 Kristin filed a postdisposition motion for relief. Her arguments
included that the circuit court: (1) failed to make findings of fact or indicate how
the record supported its decision; (2) violated her due process right to be present
3
No. 2019AP1166
and meaningfully exercise her other rights at her extension hearing; and
(3) violated her statutory right to be present at the hearing.3
¶9 After briefing, the circuit court denied the motion in a written
decision. It held that her appeal was moot because the underlying commitment
order had expired. The court also rejected Kristin’s arguments on the merits.
Relevant to this appeal, the court found that it made the requisite findings in its
written order, Kristin was personally and timely served notice of the hearing, and
Kristin had the opportunity to attend the hearing.
DISCUSSION
¶10 On appeal, Kristin contends that the circuit court violated her
constitutional due process and statutory rights because she did not receive
“effective notice” of the time of her hearing, the circuit court proceeded without
her at the hearing, and the circuit court provided insufficient reasoning on the
record and in its written order for extending her commitment. In addition, Kristin
argues that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence from Seidl
regarding Kristin’s behavior when she was not medicated.
¶11 The County disagrees with Kristin on the merits and contends that
because the extension order underlying this appeal has expired and there have
been subsequent extension orders entered that apply to Kristin, this appeal is moot.
¶12 For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the County and
dismiss this appeal as moot.
3
Kristin also argued that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. This
argument is not pursued on appeal.
4
No. 2019AP1166
¶13 Mootness of a legal action or issue presents a question of law for our
de novo review. See PRN Assocs. LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25, 317 Wis. 2d
656, 766 N.W.2d 559. An action or issue is moot when its determination “cannot
have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.” Milwaukee
Police Ass’n v. City of Milwaukee, 92 Wis. 2d 175, 183, 285 N.W.2d 133 (1979).
¶14 In State v. Wood, in which a defendant who had been found not
guilty by reason of mental disease or defect sought relief from an involuntary
medication order, our supreme court suggested that a “live controversy” may exist
when the challenged action could occur again. Id., 2010 WI 17, ¶¶1, 2, 10 n.8,
323 Wis. 2d 321, 780 N.W.2d 63. In a footnote, the court observed:
Neither party argues that Wood's current compliance with
the oral medication regimen renders this appeal moot.
Indeed, there is support in case law for the parties' apparent
position that the case is not moot, given that Wood
continues to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, has shown
a pattern of refusing recommended treatment, and remains
in the custody of DHFS, where he is still subject to the
order he challenges here should he no longer consent to
voluntarily take his medication. See Washington v. Harper,
494 U.S. 210, 218-19, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178(1990) (live controversy existed even though the state had
ceased administration of antipsychotic drugs to the prisoner
who continued to suffer from schizophrenia, continued to
remain in the prison system, and remained subject to the
challenged policy); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 486-87,
100 S. Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (live controversy
existed where, but for injunction, nothing clearly prevented
the challenged action from recurring).
Id., 323 Wis. 2d 321, ¶10 n.8.
¶15 Several years later, however, in Winnebago Cty. v. Chistopher S., a
Chapter 51 appeal of an expired initial commitment order and medication order,
our supreme court stated that “there is ‘an apparent lack of a live controversy’
when an appellant appeals an order to which he or she is no longer subjected.”
5
No. 2019AP1166
2016 WI 1, ¶¶22, 31, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109 (citations omitted). Thus,
the court concluded that the appeal was moot because the underlying orders had
expired. Id., ¶31.
¶16 Following Christopher S., our supreme court examined mootness in
the context of an expired extension order. Portage Cty. v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶1,
386 Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509. In J.W.K., the court reiterated that “[a]n
appeal of an expired commitment order is moot” and stated that reversing the
expired order would have no practical effect on the underlying controversy
because J.W.K. was no longer subject to the order. Id., ¶14. The court, however,
suggested that an appeal of an expired commitment might not be moot if the order
subjected the individual to collateral consequences. Id., ¶28 n.11.
¶17 Subsequently, our supreme court again addressed mootness in
Marathon Cty. v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, 390 Wis. 2d 50, 937 N.W.2d 901. In D.K., the
court confirmed that “collateral consequences [could] render an otherwise moot
issue not moot.” Id., ¶¶23, 25. The court further concluded that although the
underlying commitment order at issue had expired, the appeal was not moot
because D.K. was “still subject to the lasting collateral consequence of a firearms
ban.” Id., ¶25. Thus, a decision in D.K.’s favor would void the firearms ban and
“have a ‘practical effect’” on him. Id. The court, however, declined to address
whether the collateral consequences of “costs of care” or “negative stigma” would
render the same result. Id., ¶25 n.7.
¶18 Kristin argues that her appeal is not moot because: (1) the alleged
due process violations in her case could recur to her thus a “live controversy
remains”; and (2) the underlying extension order carries two collateral
consequences—social stigma and the fact that the order could potentially be used
6
No. 2019AP1166
against her in other legal proceedings pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.30(3)(b) and
(4)(b)11.
¶19 First, as noted above, our supreme court has stated that “there is ‘an
apparent lack of a live controversy’” when the underlying commitment order has
expired and that an expired commitment order is moot. See Christopher S., 366
Wis. 2d 1, ¶31; J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d 672, ¶14.
¶20 Second, vacating the order in this case would not have a practical
effect on Kristin. See D.K., 390 Wis. 2d 50, ¶25. We recognize the impact that
the social stigma associated with an involuntary commitment can have on an
individual. However, at issue in this appeal is the order extending Kristin’s
commitment—not the initial commitment order. Any social stigma Kristin would
potentially endure stems from her initial commitment, not from an extension
order. Kristin has not alleged that she has suffered any particular stigma
associated with the order at issue on appeal.
¶21 Moreover, Kristin ignores the fact that vacating the extension order
is not the equivalent of expunging the order. See Waukesha Cty. v. S.L.L., 2019
WI 66, ¶40, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929 N.W.2d 140. In other words, even if we agreed
that the circuit court erred in granting the extension order and we vacated the
order, the order would “still be a matter of record; it would simply have no
operative effect.” See id. Further, the examining physician reports, treatment
records, court files, and other records relating to any previous proceedings would
still be accessible to corporation counsel and Department of Health Services Staff.
See id. Thus, vacating Kristin’s now-expired extension order would not have any
practical effect.
7
No. 2019AP1166
¶22 Finally, Kristin argues that if her appeal is moot, it falls within an
exception to the mootness doctrine. See State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶14, 253
Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341.4 We disagree.
¶23 “Moot cases will be decided on the merits only in the most
exceptional or compelling circumstances.” City of Racine v. J-T. Enters. Of Am.,
Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 702, 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). We are not persuaded that this
case presents the sort of exceptional or compelling circumstances that would
warrant a decision on the merits. While Kristin alleges that her constitutional due
process and statutory rights to be present were violated, her arguments ultimately
turn on the specific facts surrounding the extension hearing at issue in this appeal.
Kristin does not assert that the alleged violations have occurred in her later
extension proceedings. Accordingly, we are not convinced that this appeal
presents an issue of recurring public importance and we decline to deviate from
the mootness doctrine in Kristin’s appeal. See J.W.J., 386 Wis. 2d 672, ¶30
(declining to apply any of the mootness exceptions to a fact-specific sufficiency of
the evidence challenge).
4
State v. Leitner states:
[The court] will retain a matter for determination although that
determination can have no practical effect on the immediate
parties: Where the issues are of great public importance; where
the constitutionality of a statute is involved; where the precise
situation under consideration arises so frequently that a definitive
decision is essential to guide the trial courts; where the issue is
likely to arise again and should be resolved by the court to avoid
uncertainty; or where a question was capable and likely of
repetition and yet evades review because the appellate process
usually cannot be completed and frequently cannot even be
undertaken within the time that would have a practical effect
upon the parties.
Id., 2002 WI 77, ¶14, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341 (citations omitted).
8
No. 2019AP1166
¶24 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
By the Court.— Appeal dismissed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)4.
9