COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

 

February 1, 2012

 

A. John Voelker

Acting 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 Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.�

 

 

 

 

Appeal No.�

2011AP2099

Cir. Ct. No.� 2010ME37B

STATE OF WISCONSIN�

IN COURT OF APPEALS

 

DISTRICT II

 

 

 

 

In the matter of the mental commitment of Nathan W.:

 

Winnebago County,

 

��������� Petitioner-Respondent,

 

���� v.

 

Nathan W.,

 

��������� Respondent-Appellant.

 

 

 

 

 

����������� APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:� karen l. seifert, Judge.� Affirmed.�

�1������� REILLY, J.[1]   Nathan W. appeals from an order extending his civil commitment for mental health treatment.� Nathan argues that Winnebago County failed to make the requisite showing of dangerousness, which in recommitment proceedings may be satisfied by showing that the individual would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.� Wis. Stat. � 51.20(1)(am).� Because the evidence presented at Nathan�s commitment hearing and all the reasonable inferences therefrom support the commitment, we affirm.�

�2������� Wisconsin Stat. � 51.20(1) governs involuntary commitment for treatment.� To commit a person, the County must show that the person is mentally ill and dangerous.� Sec. � 51.20(1)(a)1 and 2.� However, under paragraph (am), if the person has been the subject of prior inpatient treatment due to an involuntary commitment, then the showing of dangerousness may be satisfied by showing �there is a substantial likelihood, based on the subject individual�s treatment record, that the individual would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.�� Finally, regarding our standard of review, the factual findings of the circuit court will be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record.� See Gerth v. Gerth, 159 Wis. 2d 678, 682, 465 N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1990).

�3������� Here, Dr. Zerrien�s testimony at the commitment hearing supported the circuit court�s commitment order.� Dr. Zerrien was Nathan�s treating psychiatrist.� Dr. Zerrien testified based on his treatment of Nathan and his review of Nathan�s medical records.� Dr. Zerrien testified that Nathan has bipolar disorder and that this mood disorder grossly impairs him when he is not under treatment, severely affecting his judgment and behavior.� Dr. Zerrien testified that the appropriate level of treatment for Nathan would be on an outpatient basis, but that if treatment were withdrawn, Nathan would become a proper subject for commitment.� The evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court�s commitment order.

����������� By the Court.�Order affirmed.

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

 


[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.