Background
Kelly R. Rose and her former husband, Russell O. Rose, filed competing guardianship petitions concerning their son, Cory, shortly before he turned 18. Cory has a diagnosed condition causing significant delays in cognitive, language, and social functioning. After a February 2024 hearing, the circuit court appointed Kelly as sole guardian of Cory’s person and dismissed Russell’s petitions.
Russell subsequently filed a series of petitions alleging that Kelly was unlawfully isolating Cory from his family. This appeal concerned his sixth and seventh petitions. The sixth cited, among other things, Kelly’s alleged failure to respond to emails from Cory’s grandmother; the seventh alleged that Kelly prevented Cory from receiving a sandwich from Russell. The circuit court dismissed both petitions, granted a protective order preventing Russell from deposing Cory, determined that Russell was not an interested person in post-guardianship proceedings, removed him from the case and the e-filing system, and continued to waive Cory’s appearance.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that claim preclusion barred Russell’s sixth petition because his successive petitions involved the same parties, followed final judgments on the merits, and arose from the same course of alleged isolation under Wisconsin’s guardianship statute. The additional facts Russell alleged did not create a new transaction or occurrence.
The court also held that Russell lacked standing because, once Cory became an adult and a guardianship order had been entered, Russell did not fall within the statutory definition of an interested person for subsequent guardianship proceedings. It further upheld the protective order because no hearing was statutorily required, the guardian ad litem showed good cause based on the burden and emotional distress a deposition would cause Cory, and discovery under the guardianship statute is permissive rather than mandatory.
Finally, the court upheld dismissal of the seventh petition despite the motion to dismiss being filed one day late, concluding that the circuit court implicitly exercised its discretion to shorten the notice period. It also affirmed Russell’s removal from the case and e-filing system and found no error in waiving Cory’s appearance because Cory did not wish to attend, his representatives conveyed his wishes, and the proceedings caused him significant stress.
Key Takeaways
- New supporting details do not avoid claim preclusion when successive guardianship petitions challenge the same alleged course of conduct.
- A parent of an adult ward is not automatically an interested person with standing in proceedings occurring after entry of a guardianship order.
- A court may prohibit discovery upon good cause and may waive an adult ward’s appearance when the ward does not wish to attend and the record shows attendance would cause significant stress.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Wisconsin courts may use claim preclusion and statutory standing requirements to end repetitive litigation over a guardian’s conduct. It also underscores that a parent’s role changes once a child reaches adulthood: parenthood alone does not confer party status in later guardianship proceedings.
The opinion is unpublished and generally may not be cited as precedent or authority except for the limited purposes permitted by Wisconsin law.