COA reverses protective placement for insufficient evidence.
Chippewa County v. N.M.E., 2026AP545, 10/13/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order granting Chippewa County’s petition for protective placement because the evidence was insufficient to show that “Nora’s” cognitive decline presented a substantial risk of serious and foreseeable harm to her and because protective placement was not the least restrictive environment consistent with her needs.
A physician testified at Nora’s final hearing on Chippewa County’s petition for protective placement that she suffered from age-related cognitive decline, which caused attention deficits, sensory and motor functioning impairment, memory loss, limited “general fundamental knowledge,” and lack of insight into her condition and current level of care. (¶ 4). The doctor said Nora’s impairments were likely to be permanent, rendered her incapable of caring for herself, and that she was a proper subject for protective placement because she would have difficulties “’surviving safely in a home setting or living on her own,’ remembering to take her medications and attend her appointments, and in making financial decisions.” (¶ 5). He added that protective placement was more appropriate than protective services because Nora needed “constant medication management” and would have assistance with preventing falls. (¶ 6). Nora’s medical conditions included encephalopathy, oral dysphagia, muscle weakness, fibromyalgia, kidney disease, heart failure, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypersomnia, asthma, cardiomyopathy, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. (¶ 7).
The circuit court found that Nora was in need of protective placement “to make sure that she is healthy and taking her medications.” (¶ 8).
But the COA reversed because the County did not present sufficient evidence that Nora was so incapable of providing her own care as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself. The COA noted that the doctor was primarily concerned that Nora would not remember to take her medications, go to appointments, and ambulate safely. However, “there was no evidence as to what symptoms would appear if Nora did not take her medications, what activities of daily living Nora might not be able to perform on her own due to her ambulatory limitations, or how these factors would affect Nora’s ability to care for herself.” (¶ 17). Moreover, the doctor suggested that Nora would take medications on her own and that there were services that could assist her with medications without having to protectively place her. (¶ 17). The COA considered the doctor’s concerns “vague and speculative,” which did not “amount to a substantial risk of serious and foreseeable harm to Nora.” (¶ 17).
The COA also determined that the County did not prove her current protective placement was the least restrictive consistent with her needs given the doctor’s testimony that services exist to help Nora with medication management and assistive devices were available to help her ambulate at home. (¶ 18).