COA relies on evidence from initial protective placement hearing to conclude current placement least restrictive where there is no evidence condition had changed and some evidence condition had deteriorated.
Door County v. R.A.W., 2026AP83, 8/18/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the appellant’s protective placement in a 24-hour community based residential facility because evidence from the initial hearing and hearing to continue protective placement was sufficient to show that the current placement was the least restrictive in light of the appellant’s need for medication management and 24-hour supervision.
The Door County Circuit Court entered an order for “Rachel’s” protective placement in 2024 due to her degenerative brain disorder and placed her in a 24-hour community based residential facility, which was determined to be the least restrictive placement given her need for medication management and her lack of cooperation with her care. (¶ 3).
Her placement was continued after a due process hearing in 2025, where a social worker testified that Rachel continued to meet the requirements for protective placement and her current placement was the least restrictive for her needs. (¶ 6). The social worker said Rachel suffered from heart problems that required treatment at an emergency room “quite often.” (¶ 7). A psychologist testified that Rachel has major neurocognitive disorder, that she did not understand the nature and consequences of her impairments, and her incapacity is permanent or likely to be permanent. (¶ 7). The psychologist’s report stated that Rachel suffers from diabetes and requires assistance with her medication management. (¶ 8). Rachel testified that she was “abused and “harassed” at her current placement, but the psychologist said the state ombudsman investigated Rachel’s complaints and did not substantiate her allegations. (¶ 9). The circuit court continued Rachel’s protective placement and determined her current placement at the same community based residential facility was the least restrictive. (¶ 10).
Rachel conceded on appeal that she continued to meet the criteria for protective placement, but argued that the County did not present sufficient evidence that her current placement is the least restrictive according to her needs.
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order finding that Rachel’s current placement was the least restrictive in light of evidence from her initial protective placement hearing that she required 24-hour supervision and the testimony at Rachel’s most recent due process hearing. (¶ 24). The COA rejected Rachel’s argument that the evidence from the prior hearing was insufficient to show that she is currently placed in the least restrictive setting because the record did not show her condition and needs had changed and the psychologist’s testimony and report suggested her condition had deteriorated. (¶ 26).