Jefferson County v. Joseph S.
795 N.W.2d 450
Wis. Ct. App.2010Background
- DHS petitioned on September 25, 2008 for guardianship of Joseph's person and estate and for protective placement due to schizoaffective disorder.
- On October 8, 2008 the court ordered temporary guardianship and placement pending a permanent hearing.
- Joseph attended most of the October 13 hearing but was removed after disrupting remarks regarding hearsay and the proceedings.
- After removal, the court granted the petitions for guardianship and protective placement; Joseph appealed the orders.
- Wisconsin statutes require attendance at guardianship and protective placement hearings unless waived by the guardian ad litem; removal raises competency concerns if attendance is not ensured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Joseph forfeit his right to attend the hearing by disruptive conduct without a prior warning? | County: conduct forfeits attendance under statutes. | Joseph: no warning; Allen standard should apply; no forfeiture. | Allen standard applied; Joseph did not forfeit the right; court lacked competency. |
| Does the statutory right to attend hearings exist and require warning before removal to preserve competency? | County: statutory attendance must be preserved; removal without warning is fatal to competency. | Joseph: right exists; warning not required for forfeiture if conduct merited removal. | Right to attend exists and may be forfeited under Allen standard; absence without warning still led to lack of competency here. |
| Should the case be remanded for further proceedings with Joseph present? | County: harmless error; remand unnecessary. | Joseph: vacate and remand for Joseph to participate; recommence hearings with him present. | Remand with Joseph present at the point of removal; recommence evidentiary portion from that point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. Milwaukee County, 256 Wis. 2d 1000 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (guardian ad litem waiver must satisfy statutory requirements)
- Byrn v. Thompson, 21 Wis. 2d 24 (Wis. Ct. App. 1963) (liberty interests and procedural protections in guardianship)
- Kalal v. Kirchmeier, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation to avoid absurd results)
- Walworth County v. Therese B., 267 Wis. 2d 310 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (protective placement involves a significant liberty interest)