Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”
The subject of this Chapter 54 guardianship is Cory, a teenager with Down’s Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorder. (¶2). Cory’s parents divorced when he was young and he has been the subject of family court orders governing placement ever since. (Id.). Prior to Cory’s 18th birthday, his mother filed a petition for guardianship and the court found she was the “only person that this Court can appoint into this role.” (¶4). The court made many negative findings about the influence and role of his father, Russell. (Id.).
After Cory turned 18, the family court order which provided Russell access to Cory expired. (¶5). As a result, Russell filed a petition for review of the guardian’s conduct pursuant to §54.68. (¶6) He alleged that the guardian, his ex-wife, had violated §54.68(2)(cm), which seemingly prohibits the guardian from “[k]nowingly isolating a ward from the ward’s family members[…].” (Id.). The circuit court held a contested hearing and ultimately concluded that the guardian was acting in Cory’s best interests by denying Russell access to Cory. (¶9).
On appeal, COA acknowledges that the guardian has admitted to withholding Cory from Russell. (¶19). While this could satisfy the dictionary definition of “isolation,” COA reads Chapter 54 holistically to hold that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.” (Id.). Thus, the statute “does not provide for a cause for action against a guardian based on denying contact between a ward and a family member when the family member’s visitation is not in the best interest of the ward.” (¶23). Here, the circuit court made sufficient findings that the guardian was acting in Cory’s best interest by prohibiting contact with Russell. (Id.). COA therefore affirms.
This is a troubling decision, and represents yet another example of the old adage that “bad facts make bad law.” It may be that the guardian-mother’s isolation of this particular ward from his father was in the ward’s best interest. But to publish a decision with this strained statutory interpretation opens up the potential for professional guardians to exploit the legal system to gain control of a ward’s assets. See the movie, “I Care A Lot.” I saw this movie play out in real life in a Wisconsin case involving an elderly but fully competent woman whose corporate guardian isolated her from her family and gained control of her substantial assets under questionable circumstances. It took three years of work by her family, doctors and lawyers to free her from this abusive situation. There were better ways to obtain the right result in the case at hand without creating dangerous precedent for this vulnerable population.