Background
S.A., age 65, voluntarily lived in an assisted-living facility when Calumet County petitioned for guardianship and protective placement. The County cited her practice of leaving the facility without notice, including episodes in which police found her at an airport and, after a Silver Alert, at a Green Bay casino. She had diabetes, high blood pressure, and a stroke history, and lacked a plan to take her medications during these trips.
The County also presented evidence that S.A. left bills unpaid, sometimes isolated herself in a dark and cluttered room, and refused assistance. The circuit court appointed a guardian and ordered S.A.’s indefinite protective placement at the facility. S.A. accepted the guardianship order but appealed the protective-placement order.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the protective-placement order. Wisconsin law required clear and convincing evidence that S.A. was so incapable of caring for herself that she posed a substantial risk of serious harm because of a developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder, serious and persistent mental illness, or other like incapacity.
Even assuming S.A. could not care for herself and faced jeopardy to her welfare, the evidence did not establish the required causal condition. The County’s doctor identified cognitive impairment in memory, reasoning, and judgment but did not diagnose its underlying cause and acknowledged that cognitive impairment can have many sources. Neither the doctor nor the facility nurse manager supplied evidence that S.A.’s condition was a developmental disability. The County also failed to identify evidence that her impairment resulted from one of the statutory causes encompassed by “other like incapacities.”
Key Takeaways
- Protective placement requires proof of every statutory element by clear and convincing evidence.
- Evidence of cognitive impairment and risky behavior alone does not establish a qualifying statutory incapacity.
- A court may not infer a developmental disability or construct an alternative statutory theory without evidentiary support.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Wisconsin’s protective-placement law restricts involuntary confinement even when a person appears vulnerable and may benefit from assistance. Petitioners must connect an individual’s inability to provide self-care to a specifically qualifying condition under the statute.