Washington County v. T.R.Z., 2024AP21, District II, 6/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “Tim’s” appeal presents several issues for review, COA dismisses the appeal as moot given the existence of an intervening Watts review.
Tim has been under guardianship and protective placement orders since 2021. (¶3). This is an appeal of an order continuing his protective placement after an annual review hearing conducted in 2023. (¶4). At that hearing, the County presented only one non-expert witness, an employee of the Washington County Health and Human Services Department, Kerrie Mazeika. (Id.).
Tim filed a postdisposition motion alleging that his lawyer was ineffective in a number of ways: “(1) not objecting to hearsay; (2) not objecting to Mazeika’s testimony that he claimed violated Wis. Stat. § 906.02’s personal knowledge requirement; (3) soliciting answers containing hearsay during Mazeika’s cross-examination that helped the County prove its case; and (4) not objecting to the County’s untimely filed Petition.” (¶6). The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing and, on appeal, Tim also adds two new legal issues: (1) the evidence was insufficient and (2) the circuit court lost competence to hold the annual review hearing due to the time limits violation. (¶8).
COA, however, declines to address any of these issues on the merits given the fact that, while this appeal was pending, a new annual review hearing was held and Tim did not appeal that order. (¶9). While Tim makes two arguments to avoid dismissal, COA is unpersuaded.
First, Tim argues that SCOW’s decision in Sauk County v. S.A.M. means that his appeal is not moot, as individuals subject to protective placement orders–like persons subject to involuntary commitment–may be liable for the cost of their court-ordered care. (¶12). However, COA finds S.A.M. distinguishable, because § 55.045 is not mandatory and explicitly takes into account the ability of the person to repay, unlike the mandatory statute at issue in S.A.M. (¶13).
Second, Tim avers that his case–with its numerous legal issues, including a recurring competency challenge–satisfies mootness exceptions. (¶15). However, as the bulk of his claims center on alleged ineffectiveness and the remedy sought is a remand for an evidentiary hearing, COA holds that “granting such relief does not serve the purpose of the mootness exceptions.” (¶17). COA also reasons that, if these issues recurred for Tim in his most recent annual review, Tim could have appealed. The fact that he did not appeal means they did not recur and, therefore, that no exception to mootness applies. (Id.).
As far as we know, this is the third appeal asking COA whether a failure to abide by deadlines for an annual review hearing divests the circuit court of competency. We posted about the issue in both R.B.L. and M.L. Neither case squarely addresses the issue on the merits. Here, COA simply ignores the competency issue altogether when conducting its mootness analysis.
