Waukesha County DHHS v. M.A.S., 2022AP877, District 2, 3/22/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity R.B. (Rose), a daughter of M.A.S. (Mary), filed an appeal of an order granting the County’s petition for a protective placement of Mary. The court of appeals holds Rose doesn’t have standing to appeal the order. Section 55.20 identifies… Read more
C. Ch. 55, Protective placement
The filing of an Emergency Protective Placement petition under §55.135(1) triggers a probable cause hearing within 72 hours. Once the court finds probable cause it may order a temporary protective placement for up to 30 days pending a hearing on a permanent protective placement. Wis. Stat. §55.135(5). Sometimes the client wants to exercise her right… Read more
J.C. v. R.S., 2022AP1215 , 2/16/23, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity In a rare Chapter 55 reversal, the court of appeals held that the petitioner failed to prove that the individual under review had a degenerative brain disorder that was likely to be permanent. In June 2021, R.S.’s daughter petitioned for… Read more
Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62; case activity Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published… Read more
Sauk County v. W.B., 2021AP322, 9/9/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity This decision should strike fear in the hearts of those who have executed a healthcare power of attorney or who hold an HPOA for a loved one. According to the court of appeals, when a court declares a person incapacitated… Read more
Clark County v. R.F., 2022AP481, District 4, 9/1/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Too bad this decision isn’t recommended for publication. The court of appeals reversed an order continuing a ch. 55 protective placement because the County failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of protective placement would provide the… Read more
Clark County v. R.D.S., 2022AP229, District 4, 8/18/22; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Ch. 55 practitioners take note! This is one of a few Wisconsin decisions reversing the continuation of a ch. 55 protective placement due to insufficient evidence. Here, the County failed to prove that due to R.D.S.’s disability he was incapable… Read more
Waukesha v. L.J.E., 2022AP292, 10/5/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity “Evans” was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, a condition considered permanent but manageable with medication. When the County sought to commit her under the 5th standard, she argued that it failed to prove that she did not satisfy one… Read more
