Winnebago County v. Marvin B.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-2098-FT,94-2098-FT
• Citation: 190 Wis.2d 472,528 N.W.2d 93
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Marvin B.: WINNEBAGO COUNTY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. MARVIN B., Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 93

528 N.W.2d 93

190 Wis.2d 472

NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES.

In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Marvin B WINNEBAGO COUNTY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. MARVIN B., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 94-2098-FT.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Dec. 21, 1994.

ANDERSON.

Marvin B. appeals from an order of the trial court filed on March 21, 1994, whereby Marvin was protectively placed at Winnebago Mental Health Institute pursuant to ch. 55, Stats. Because we conclude that Marvin's placement at Winnebago violated § 55.06(9)(a), Stats., we reverse.

A petition for guardianship and protective placement for Marvin was filed in January 1987, stating that Marvin "is chronically mentally ill, likely to remain so, and incompetent to make decisions regarding person...." An order for emergency protective placement was filed on January 20, 1987. The order stated: "[B]ased on the testimony of Dr. Inam Haque, probable cause exists to believe that [Marvin] has a primary need for residential care and custody, and, as a result of chronic mental illness, is so totally incapable of providing for his own care or custody so as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself. Moreover, such disability is permanent or likely to be permanent."

Marvin requested a review of his protective placement pursuant to State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Community Servs. Bd., 122 Wis.2d 65, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985). The hearing was held in July 1993. On August 12, 1993, the trial court filed an order for continued protective placement, stating that Marvin continued to be substantially incapable of caring for himself; continued to have a primary need for residential care and custody as a result of chronic mental illness; and posed a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others as a result of his disabilities if not protectively placed.

The trial court ordered that Marvin be placed in a locked unit in the Winnebago County Mental Health Institute until he was medically stabilized. Once the stabilization occurred, Marvin would be transferred to a locked unit in a normative nursing home. Marvin had been residing at Winnebago since April 5, 1993. He was transferred there due to his assaultive behavior.

Marvin filed another objection to his placement at Winnebago in December 1993. A motion hearing was held on March 1, 1994, regarding whether Winnebago was an appropriate placement. The trial court concluded that Marvin's placement at Winnebago did not violate § 55.06(9)(a), Stats.

A jury trial was held on March 4, 1994. The jury found that Marvin was substantially incompetent in managing his property and his personal affairs by reason of infirmities of aging, developmental disabilities or other like incapacities. It also concluded that Marvin continued to have a primary need for residential care and custody; that Marvin suffers from a disability which is permanent or likely to be permanent; and that his incapacities create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others.

An order was filed on March 21, 1994, for continued guardianship and continued protective placement. The order stated that Marvin "shall be protective[ly] placed at Winnebago Mental Health Institute through the Winnebago County Department of Social Services effective immediately." Marvin appeals from the trial court's order.

We must decide whether a person who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, but also exhibits secondary symptoms which are amenable to treatment, can be placed in an acute treatment unit under ch. 55, Stats. This is a question of statutory interpretation. "The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law and, as a result, we need not give special deference to the circuit court's determination." See K.N.K. v. Buhler, 139 Wis.2d 190, 199, 407 N.W.2d 281, 286 (Ct.App.1987).

Marvin argues that his placement at Winnebago, where most patients are expected to stay no longer than ninety days, violates § 55.06(9)(a), Stats., prohibiting the placement of individuals suffering from chronic mental illness in units for the acutely mentally ill. Section 55.06(9)(a) provides in part:

When ordering placement, the court, on the basis of the evaluation and other relevant evidence shall order placement through the appropriate board designated under s. 55.02 or an agency designated by it. Placement shall be made in the least restrictive environment consistent with the needs of the person to be placed. Factors to be considered in making protective placement shall include the needs of the person to be protected for health, social or rehabilitative services and the level of supervision needed. Placement under this section does not replace commitment of a person in need of acute psychiatric treatment under s. 51.20 or 51.45(13). Placement may be made to such facilities as nursing homes, public medical institutions, centers for the developmentally disabled under the requirements of s. 51.06(3), foster care services and other home placements, or to other appropriate facilities but may not be made to units for the acutely mentally ill. The prohibition of placements in units for the acutely mentally ill does not prevent placement by a court for short-term diagnostic procedures under par. (d). Placement in a locked unit shall require a specific finding of the court as to the need for...