COA affirms order continuing protective placement
Waukesha County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.O., 2025AP2640, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms an order continuing “Cathy’s” protective placement based on concerns about her lack of independence and alcoholism.
Cathy, who has been diagnosed with a major neurocognitive disorder and has a history of alcoholism, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in this annual review appeal under multiple theories:
Primary Need for Residential Care and Custody
Cathy points to testimony in the record that she is “independent with all aspects of her personal care,” “does not require any assistive devices in her daily functioning,” and “actively participate[s] in her own … care appropriately.” (¶10). Two other witnesses described Cathy as “independent” in at least some sense. (Id.). However, “an individual cannot claim that the County failed to provide sufficient evidence that the individual has a primary need for residential care and custody simply because the individual is capable of performing some daily tasks.” (¶11). Here, the evidence shows that “Cathy is reliant on staff for most meals as well as for the administration of her medication.” (Id.). COA also relies on the circuit court’s finding that Cathy is unable to voluntarily consent to medication. (Id.).
Dangerousness
Cathy claims the County’s dangerousness evidence was based on “speculative fears of relapse rather than current behavior” and argues that vague references to historical issues do not prove her present dangerousness at this annual review hearing. (¶12). COA disagrees: “The court did not err when it concluded that Cathy’s history of alcohol consumption, expert testimony regarding her lack of insight into her condition, her inability to manage her own medications, and her lack of any plans or coping mechanisms to avoid further episodes of alcohol consumption established a substantial and specific risk of serious harm to herself.” (¶13).
Least Restrictive Placement
Cathy argues a supportive apartment, rather than a Community-Based Residential Facility (CBRF) is the appropriate level of placement. (¶14). However, the County’s witnesses established that Cathy needs round-the-clock care and “constant staff presence and supervision is not guaranteed at every supported apartment….” (¶15). Accordingly, the court did not err in concluding that a more restrictive level of placement was therefore appropriate under these circumstances. (Id.).