On Point: C. Ch. 55, Protective placement

Racine County v. R.P.L., 2025AP813-FT, 7/30/25, petition for review granted 11/17/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal from an annual protective placement review, R.P.L. escapes a finding of mootness but loses on the merits.

Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings. 

Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).

Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.

Ozaukee County v. S.S., 2024AP759, District II, 9/11/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In determining whether to continue protective placement under Chapter 55, the County does not need to present an expert witness to establish an individual continues to meet the criteria for placement, and the circuit court may rely on the entire record – not just the record at the annual review hearing – to find grounds to continue placement.

Washington County v. T.R.Z., 2024AP21, District II, 6/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although “Tim’s” appeal presents several issues for review, COA dismisses the appeal as moot given the existence of an intervening Watts review.

Outagamie County DHHS v. L.C.E., 2023AP929, District 3, 6/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that “Lauren” was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).

Douglas County v. M.L, 2022AP141, 12/28/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Faced with a challenge to the circuit court’s competency in this protective placement appeal, COA holds that the appellant has forfeited his challenge and therefore affirms.

Douglas County v. J.M., 2022AP2035, 11/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“James” was subjected to a guardianship under ch. 54 and a protective placement under ch. 55 in 2020. He had annual reviews of placement in 2021 and 2022; the last one is the subject of this appeal. James argues that the county was obligated to put on medical expert testimony to meet its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he meets three of the elements for a protective placement (he does not dispute that he is an adult who’s been found incompetent, the remaining element). The court of appeals delves into the record of past hearings and holds that these older filings fill in the gaps. But isn’t the point of a due-process (Watts) review to determine how the person is doing now?

Racine County v. B.L.M., 2023AP757, 11/22/23, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite a creative challenge to a continued protective placement order, COA rejects any argument that the circuit court lost competency by failing to timely reappoint a GAL in this protective placement appeal.