Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F.
814 N.W.2d 179
Wis.2012Background
- Helen E.F., an 85-year-old with Alzheimer's, resided in a Fond du Lac nursing home for six years before this action.
- She exhibited agitation and aggression in April 2010, leading to emergency hospital detention under Wis. Stat. § 51.15.
- The county initially filed a ch. 51 petition for involuntary treatment, which was converted to a 30-day ch. 55 protective placement.
- A second ch. 51 petition was filed after the 30-day ch. 55 period expired, with physicians testifying Alzheimer’s is not treatable.
- The circuit court granted a six-month ch. 51 commitment based on medical testimony; the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court holds ch. 55 is more appropriate due to permanent disability, with protections and processes tailored to her needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ch. 55 the appropriate mechanism for Helen’s care? | Helen’s condition warrants long-term protective placement. | County seeks ch. 51 treatment and possible short-term rehabilitation. | Yes; ch. 55 is appropriate for long-term, protective placement. |
| Should a Guardian Ad Litem be appointed under the proceedings? | GAL appointment was not provided under ch. 51. | Not required under ch. 51; county argued placement under ch. 51. | Yes; GAL appointment required under ch. 55. |
| Is Helen a proper subject for treatment under ch. 51 given her condition? | Athans/C.J. show potential rehabilitation under treatment. | Alzheimer's is not treatable; rehabilitation not possible. | No; she is not a proper subject for ch. 51 treatment. |
| Does the permanent nature of Helen’s disability favor protection under ch. 55 over treatment under ch. 51? | Permanent disability supports long-term care. | Temporary management of symptoms could justify ch. 51. | Yes; permanent disability supports ch. 55, with protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milwaukee Cnty. Combined Cmty. Servs. Bd. v. Athans, 107 Wis. 2d 331 (Ct. App. 1982) (rehabilitation not possible; treatment not appropriate under ch. 51)
- C.J. v. State, 120 Wis. 2d 355 (Ct. App. 1983) (rehabilitation possible; treatment appropriate under ch. 51)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (balance between state interests and individual liberty in care settings)
- Rolo v. Goers, 174 Wis. 2d 709 (1993) (statutory framework for commitment; context for medical treatment and rights)