On Point: C. Ch. 55, Protective placement

MaryBeth Lipp v. Outagamie County Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011AP152, District 3, 6/5/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Failure to decide a guardianship petition within the statutorily mandated 90 days of filing (§ 54.44(1)) caused the trial court to lose competency to proceed. Lack of objection didn’t waive the issue, ¶¶11-12, citing Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut,

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.

¶13  Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Aaron B.: Jeremy C. Perri, Hannah Blair Schieber, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Guardianship – Placement Hearing – Personal Appearance 

Failure to object to ward’s inability to appear at guardianship placement hearing waived argument that court should not have held hearing in ward’s absence.

¶7        Wisconsin Stat. § 55.10(2) provides that a ward must attend a protective placement hearing unless “after a personal interview,

Outagamie County Department of Health and Human Services v. Gregory M., 2011AP1978, District 3, 1/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gregory M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support  a “primary need for residential care and custody,” § 55.08(1)(a), notwithstanding that ” Gregory is able to perform most daily living activities with little or no assistance,” ¶¶13-15.

Dane County v. Kelly M., 2011 WI App 69 (recommended for publication); for Kelly M.: Ruth N. Westmont, Ashley J. Richter; case activity

Kelly M. appeals a commitment order premised on the “fifth standard,” inability by reason of mental illness to understand the advantages and disadvantages of medication or treatment for the mental illness.

¶3        We conclude as follows:  (1) Commitment is available under the fifth standard for individuals who have dual diagnoses—that is,

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”

Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed.

¶5        A determination that a person “is incompetent … is as difficult a judgment as a judge is called upon to make,” and thus the legislature has adopted procedural requirements “to mitigate the chances of error.”  Byrn v.

Waukesha County v. Genevieve M., 2009 WI App 173
For Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Although a ch. 54 guardianship appeal is decided by a 3-judge and ch. 55 protective placement by a 1-judge panel, when the 2 were commenced and decided under a single trial court case number, the appeal will be decided by a 3-judge panel:

¶5        The plain language of Wis.

Dunn County v. Judy K., 2002 WI 87, on certification

Issue: Whether a county is required to find an fund an appropriate placement under § 55.06(9)(a).

Holding:

¶28. We therefore determine that in protective placements pursuant to § 55.06(9)(a), counties must make an affirmative showing of a good faith, reasonable effort to find an appropriate placement and to secure funding to pay for an appropriate placement.