On Point: E. Ch. 880, Guardianships

Fond du Lac County v. J.L.H., 2020AP2049, 3/24/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Wisconsin Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)e. lays out the “fifth standard” for dangerousness; a person can be committed under it if his or her mental illness prevents him or her from understanding the advantages and disadvantages of treatment, and a lack of treatment will cause a substantial probability that the person will be harmed and become unable to function. But there’s a limitation on this standard that the other standards lack: a person can’t be dangerous under it if care is available, either in the community at large or through ch. 55, that diminishes the threat of harm so that it is not substantial.

Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.

Holding:

¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.

Amy Z. v. Jon T., 2004 WI App 73
For Jon T.: Geoffrey Dowse

Issue/Holding:

¶18. We conclude that the circuit court had the authority to order child support in the context of the Wis. Stat. ch. 880 proceeding. We do so in light of the constitutional grant of broad plenary power to the circuit courts coupled with the petition requirements under Wis. Stat. § 880.07,

Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223

Issue/Holding: Procedural due process in guardianship and protective placement proceedings is governed by the analysis used in mental commitments, W.J.C. v. Vilas County, 124 Wis. 2d 238, 240, 369 N.W.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1985), which in turn adopts Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976):

¶11 … The Mathews test “involves balancing three factors: 1) The private interest affected by the official action,

Guerrero v. Cavey, 2000 WI App 203, 238 Wis.2d 449, 617 N.W.2d 849

Issue: Whether a person adjudicated incompetent may waive her attorney’s conflict of interest.

Holding: Because the client’s understanding of the attorney’s potentially divided loyalty is a necessary component of waiver of a conflict, and because no claim is made that the circuit court erred in finding the mother to be incompetent, she was,

Guerrero v. Cavey, 2000 WI App 203, 238 Wis.2d 449, 617 N.W.2d 849

Issue: Whether an attorney’s dual representation of the subject of a guardianship and her son worked a conflict of interest.

Holding: The two clients had competing interests, including the son’s desire to buy his mother’s house at below market value, and the attorney therefore had a conflict of interest, ¶¶13-17.