Winnebago Cnty. v. M.R.R. (In re M.R.R.), Appeal No. 2018AP273
| Decision Date | 03 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2018AP273 |
| Citation | 384 Wis.2d 633,2018 WI App 71,922 N.W.2d 322 (Table) |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the GUARDIANSHIP and Protective Placement OF M.R.R.: Winnebago County, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M.R.R., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
¶ 1 The circuit court concluded that M.R.R. continued to be in need of guardianship of both his person and estate, and that his protective placement was still warranted. M.R.R. challenges these conclusions on the grounds that Winnebago County failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the statutory standards were met. We disagree and affirm.
¶ 2 M.R.R. is a sixty-two-year-old man who, in 1984, suffered a traumatic brain injury from an automobile accident that left him in a coma for thirteen days. Since the accident, M.R.R. has also been diagnosed with personality change due to traumatic brain injury and unspecified personality disorder with narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive features.
¶ 3 In 2015, the Winnebago County Department of Health Services filed a petition for M.R.R.'s permanent guardianship on the basis of his incompetency. At the time, M.R.R. was committed to the State Department of Health Services for institutional placement after he had, in 2001, been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for attempted first-degree intentional homicide. In response to the County's petition, the circuit court ordered an independent psychological examination, held a hearing, and concluded that M.R.R. was incompetent and ordered the appointment of a guardian of his person and estate.
¶ 4 In 2016, prior to the expiration of his commitment period, the County filed a petition for M.R.R.'s protective placement. Thereafter, a unanimous jury found M.R.R. to be incompetent, with a condition that was permanent or likely to be permanent, and in need of protective placement. The circuit court entered a subsequent order for M.R.R.'s protective placement in a monitored and locked unit. Pursuant to that order, M.R.R. was transferred from the Mendota Mental Health Institute (Mendota)—where he had spent a majority of his institutional placement in maximum-security units—to a group home in Sheboygan.
¶ 5 The Sheboygan group home was stripped down and highly structured to provide maximum safety for staff and M.R.R. One morning, M.R.R. informed staff, From there, he proceeded to destroy kitchen drawers and cabinet doors while the staff retreated into a locked safe area in the garage and monitored him via internal security cameras. M.R.R. then tipped over a refrigerator, ripped off the refrigerator door and an island countertop, and sprayed the kitchen security camera with a fire extinguisher. He went on to barricade the garage entryway with the refrigerator and threw food at the door in an effort to trip anyone who entered. Staff watched as M.R.R. uprooted metal poles that had been supporting the island and that he then wielded in a threatening fashion whenever someone attempted to enter the kitchen. When law enforcement arrived, M.R.R. did not comply with their requests and instead "went all big and bold on them," according to a witness. A still-agitated M.R.R. was eventually subdued by a stun gun and removed from the house on an ambulance stretcher. The incident resulted in property damage of $20,000.
¶ 6 Following the incident, M.R.R. was transferred back to Mendota after the Winnebago Mental Health Institute declined to accept him due to his aggressive behavior during an earlier placement. M.R.R. was later transferred to placement houses in Madison and then Appleton.
¶ 7 In March 2017, the County filed an annual review of protective placement, in which it concluded that M.R.R. continued to be in need of protective placement. M.R.R.'s guardian ad litem (GAL) responded by informing the court that he too recommended a continuation of protective placement. The GAL further noted that M.R.R. had requested a hearing on the annual review and disputed his ongoing need for guardianship and protective placement.
¶ 8 In August 2017, the circuit court held a full due process hearing, during which three witnesses were called. Testifying first was Dr. James Black, who was appointed to conduct an independent psychological examination and filed a corresponding report. Black explained that his examination of M.R.R. consisted of a two-hour, in-person meeting and a review of M.R.R.'s extensive medical and case history records. Black testified that M.R.R. remained in need of guardianship and protective placement. Next, Kim Steinhaus, a community support manager at the Sheboygan group home, testified regarding her knowledge of M.R.R.'s stay at the group home and, in particular, the circumstances that led to his removal from the facility. M.R.R. also testified on his own behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the GAL reaffirmed his recommendation that M.R.R.'s guardianship and protective placement should be continued. Further details on the testimony will be discussed below.
¶ 9 Assessing the evidence, the circuit court found that M.R.R. continued to be in need of guardianship of both his person and estate, and that protective placement was warranted. The circuit court followed with an order continuing M.R.R.'s protective placement for one year in a monitored and locked unit with twenty-four-hour supervision. M.R.R. appeals from that order.
¶ 10 This appeal centers on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the continuation of M.R.R.'s guardianship and protective placement. We conclude it was.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 11 Decisions on guardianship and protective placement are within the sound discretion of the circuit court. Anna S. v. Diana M. , 2004 WI App 45, ¶ 7, 270 Wis. 2d 411, 678 N.W.2d 285. In reviewing these decisions, we will not disturb a circuit court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. See WIS. STAT. § 805.01(2) ; Robin K. v. Lamanda M. , 2006 WI 68, ¶ 12, 291 Wis. 2d 333, 718 N.W.2d 38 ; Walworth Cty. v. Therese B. , 2003 WI App 223, ¶ 21, 267 Wis. 2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377. Whether the evidence satisfies the applicable legal standards is a question of law we review de novo. Therese B. , 267 Wis. 2d 310, ¶ 21.
B. Guardianship of the Person and Estate under WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(a)
¶ 12 Under WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(a), a court may appoint a guardian of an individual's person and estate if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is incompetent. Absent an individual's complete inability to effectively communicate decisions, the court's determination regarding incompetency "may not be based on mere old age, eccentricity, poor judgment, or physical disability." Sec. 54.10(3)(b). Along these lines, our supreme court has stressed the careful scrutiny that must be applied when depriving an incompetent person of their liberty:
These hearings cannot be perfunctory under the law. Attention to detail is important. A county cannot expect that a judge concerned about a person with mental illness will automatically approve an ... order, even though the person before the court has chosen a course of action that the county disapproves.
Outagamie Cty. v. Melanie L. , 2013 WI 67, ¶ 94, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607 ().
¶ 13 A finding of incompetency in this context is premised on the satisfaction of four elements outlined in WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(a)1.-4. M.R.R. does not dispute whether the evidence established that the elements under § 54.10(3)(a)1. and 4. were proven.2 Therefore, we will focus solely on whether the County failed to present sufficient evidence to meet § 54.10(3)(a)2. and 3.
¶ 14 WISCONSIN STAT. § 54.10(3)(a)2. provides:
For purposes of appointment of a guardian of the person, because of an impairment, the individual is unable effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual is unable to meet the essential requirements for his or her physical health and safety.
WIS. STAT. ch. 54 further defines two terms. "Impairment" is defined as "a developmental disability, serious and persistent mental illness, degenerative brain disorder, or other like incapacities." WIS. STAT. § 54.01(14). And "meet the essential requirements for physical health or safety" means an ability to "perform those actions necessary to provide the health care, food, shelter, clothes, personal hygiene, and other care without which serious physical injury or illness will likely occur." Sec. 54.01(19).
¶ 15 At the hearing, Black testified that M.R.R. suffers from a traumatic brain injury and explained that this injury fell under the impairment category of "other like incapacities." Relying upon this testimony—and similar conclusions in Black's postexamination report—the circuit court made the same findings. The circuit court's conclusion was sufficiently supported and satisfies the legal standard for an impairment under WIS. STAT. § 54.01(14).
¶ 16 Black also testified that M.R.R.'s impairment interferes with his ability to meet the essential requirements of his health and safety. According to Black, this conclusion, and his recommendation that guardianship should be continued, largely rested on M.R.R.'s emotional outbursts and inability to manage his behavior. He added that M.R.R. suffers from extremely poor impulse control, noting that if his routine is disrupted or if he feels overwhelmed, agitated, or reactive to a situation, he has limited ability to control his behavior.
¶ 17 With regard to the outbursts, Black testified about a number of incidents in M.R.R.'s case history of aggressive, high-intensity/low-frequency behavior that was driven by his brain injury. In addition to the above-described incident at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tefelske v. Metallurgical Assocs., Inc. (In re Hutchinson), Appeal No. 2018AP395
...384 Wis.2d 633922 N.W.2d 322 (Table)2018 WI App 71IN RE the Finding of CONTEMPT OF Robert J. HUTCHINSON:Thomas C. Tefelske, Wendy L. Tefelske and Tee-Squared Services, Inc., Plaintiffs-Respondents,v.Metallurgical Associates, Inc. and Karen L. Hutchinson, Defendants,Robert J. Hutchinson, Def......