Wisconsin Supreme Court Affirms 'Helen E.F.' Decision

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the controversial decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in In re Helen E.F.,1 which stated that individuals with permanent disabilities that are likely not capable of rehabilitation are not to be committed under the procedures set forth in Chapter 51 of the Wisconsin Statutes (Chapter 51). This decision,2 rendered by Justice Michael Gableman on May 18, 2012, eliminates one potentially useful tool for senior living facilities straining to manage the challenging behaviors of their residents.

The facts in the Helen E.F. case were undisputed. Helen is an 85 year old woman who was a resident in a Fond du Lac, Wisconsin nursing facility. She suffers from Alzheimer's dementia and exhibits challenging, often violent, behaviors. During a hospitalization in 2010, where Helen displayed such behaviors, she was placed in the hospital's behavioral health unit pursuant to an emergency detention under Chapter 51. At her probable cause hearing, Helen's Chapter 51 petition was converted to a protective placement under Chapter 55 of the Wisconsin Statutes (Chapter 55). Later, a new Chapter 51 petition was filed, and the circuit court found that Helen was a proper subject for involuntary commitment under Chapter 51, pursuant to which she was to be committed to a locked psychiatric unit for up to six months. Helen appealed the decision of the circuit court, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Chapter 55, not Chapter 51, was the appropriate statutory framework to manage the conditions of individuals like Helen, as the purpose of Chapter 51 is to provide treatment, and Alzheimer's dementia typically does not respond to treatment.

In affirming the lower court's decision, the Court reviewed both Chapter 51 and Chapter 55, holding that "[Chapter 55] was specifically tailored by the legislature to provide for the long term care of individuals with incurable disorders, while [Chapter] 51 was designed to facilitate the treatment of mental illnesses suffered by those capable of rehabilitation." Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, ¶ 13. The Court reviewed the fact based test set forth in In re C.J.,3 which held that if treatment will "'maximize[e] the[ ] individual functioning and maintenance'" of the person, "'but not help[ ] in controlling or improving the disorder[ ],'" then the person "does not have rehabilitative potential, and is not a proper subject for treatment." Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, ¶ 36 (quoting In re...