On Point: C. Ch. 55, Protective placement

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gregory M.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity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

Kindcare, Inc. v. Judith G., 2002 WI App 36

Issue/Holding:

¶3 The issue presented by this appeal is whether the circuit court loses competence to adjudicate a person’s need for protective placement if the probable-cause hearing is not held within seventy-two hours after the person was taken into custody, or whether, as the trial court determined, the seventy-two-hours clock can be reset by the simple expedient of filing a new petition for protective placement.

Knight and Knight v. Milwaukee Co., 2002 WI App 194

Issue/Holding: A trial court lacks competency to enter orders with respect to an alleged incompetent, unless the g.a.l. certifies the specific reasons the person can’t attend, pursuant to § 880.08(1).

County of Dunn v. Goldie H., 2001 WI 102, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Goldie H.: John E. Joyce

Issue: Whether a ch. 55 subject has a right to a hearing before the circuit court orders continuation of protective placement; and whether the circuit court must make findings of fact to support such an order.

Holding:

¶6. We hold that a person is entitled to a hearing on the record before his or her protective placement is continued,