COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

September 11, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2024AP759-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2020GN21

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE PLACEMENT OF S.S.

OZAUKEE COUNTY,

 PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 V.

S. S.,

 RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Ozaukee County: 

SANDY A. WILLIAMS, Judge. Affirmed. 
No. 2024AP759-FT

2

¶1 NEUBAUER, J.1 S.S., referred to herein by the pseudonym 

Samuel, appeals from an order continuing his protective placement under WIS.

STAT. § 55.18(3)(e)1. Samuel argues that Ozaukee County (the “County”) did not 

prove by clear and convincing evidence that he continues to meet the statutory 

requirements for protective placement. For the reasons that follow, this court 

affirms.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Samuel was first ordered into protective placement in May 2020. 

His placement was continued in 2021 and 2022 following annual reviews required 

under WIS. STAT. § 55.18. In April 2023, the County filed a petition for a third 

annual review of Samuel’s placement status. As he had previously, Samuel 

contested the petition and so the circuit court held a full due process hearing. At 

the end of the hearing, the court concluded that the County had met its burden of 

proof and entered an order continuing his protective placement. This 2023 order is 

the subject of Samuel’s appeal. 

¶3 To provide context for the relevant facts, this court provides a brief 

overview of the standards and procedures that govern protective placements under 

WIS. STAT. ch. 55. Chapter 55, which “is focused on the provision of long-term 

care to individuals with incurable conditions,” allows a circuit court to order 

protective placement for an individual if four criteria are met. Fond du Lac 

County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, ¶¶14, 25, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. 

Specifically, protective placement may be ordered if an individual: (1) “has a 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(d) (2021-22). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2024AP759-FT

3

primary need for residential care and custody”; (2) “has been determined to be 

incompetent by a circuit court”; (3) “is so totally incapable of providing for his or 

her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or 

herself or others” due to “developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder, 

serious and persistent mental illness, or other like incapacities”; and (4) “has a 

disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent.” WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1)(a)-

(d). 

¶4 Protective placements “massive[ly] curtail[]” an individual’s 

personal liberty and can also “engender adverse social consequences.” Vitek v. 

Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491-92 (1980) (citations omitted). Thus, the legislature has 

mandated that they be administered “to place the least possible restriction on 

personal liberty and exercise of constitutional rights consistent with due process 

and protection from abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, and self-neglect.” WIS.

STAT. § 55.001. 

¶5 One way in which Chapter 55 gives effect to this statutory purpose is 

by requiring that an individual’s placement status be reviewed annually. See WIS.

STAT. § 55.18. As part of an annual review, a county must evaluate the “physical, 

mental and social condition of the individual and [his or her] service needs.” 

Sec. 55.18(1)(a). The county must also file a report of the evaluation, which 

becomes “part of the permanent record of the individual.” Id. After the report is 

filed, the circuit court must appoint a guardian ad litem for the individual. 

Sec. 55.18(2). The guardian ad litem must review the individual’s placement and 

file a report setting forth the guardian ad litem’s views on “whether the individual 

appears to continue to meet the standards for protective placement ... and whether 

the protective placement is in the least restrictive environment that is consistent 

with the individual’s needs.” Sec. 55.18(2)(a)-(f). The court must also, if the 
No. 2024AP759-FT

4

individual requests, order an independent evaluation of his or her “physical, 

mental, and social condition” and “service needs.” Sec. 55.18(3)(b)3. 

¶6 Where, as here, an individual contests continued placement, the 

circuit court must hold a hearing to determine whether the individual continues to 

meet the four statutory criteria. WIS. STAT. § 55.18(3)(d). At the hearing, the 

county must prove that the individual continues to meet those criteria by clear and 

convincing evidence. See id.; see also WIS. STAT. § 55.10(4)(d); Douglas County 

v. J.M., No. 2022AP2035, unpublished slip op. ¶18 (WI App Nov. 28, 2023).2 If 

the court orders that protective placement be continued, it must “include in the 

order the information relied upon as a basis for the order and shall make findings 

based on the standards under [WIS. STAT. §] 55.08(1) in support of the need for 

continuation of the protective placement.” Sec. 55.18(3)(e)1. 

¶7 Before turning to the facts, this court must address a disagreement 

between the parties concerning the scope of this court’s review. The record 

includes not only the reports and testimony generated in connection with the 2023

annual review at issue in this case, but also reports, hearing transcripts, and other 

documents related to Samuel’s initial protective placement in 2020 and the annual 

reviews conducted in 2021 and 2022. The parties disagree about whether this 

court must limit its analysis to the materials related to the 2023 annual review or 

whether it may also consider reports and documents related to the 2020-2022

placements.

 

2

 Though unpublished, this court’s opinion in Douglas County v. J.M., No. 

2022AP2035, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 28, 2023), may be cited for persuasive value. 

See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3)(b).
No. 2024AP759-FT

5

¶8 The County argues that this court may consider past reports and 

documents, citing in support our unpublished opinion in J.M. There, this court 

stated that “all reports and documents that have been admitted into evidence in the 

individual’s prior protective placement proceedings may be relied upon, in 

addition to any witness testimony introduced during the individual’s due process 

hearing.” J.M., No. 2022AP2035, ¶20. Samuel disagrees, arguing that reliance on 

materials related to prior protective placements conflicts with our supreme court’s 

decision in State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Community Services Board of 

Milwaukee County, 122 Wis. 2d 65, 83, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985). There, the court 

recognized that an “individual’s incompetence, need for residential care and 

custody or risk of harm may change with time” and held that individuals in 

protective placement were “entitled to the right of periodic, automatic judicial 

review that all other civilly committed persons in Wisconsin have.” Samuel 

contends that this right “would be hollow if the court is permitted to rely solely on 

past reports and documents to determine whether protective placement should be 

continued.” 

¶9 Samuel’s argument is not well-taken. To be sure, an annual review 

of an individual’s protective placement focuses on whether they currently satisfy 

the four criteria in WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1), not whether they did so at some point in 

the past. But that focus on an individual’s present needs, capabilities, and 

condition does not render evidence from prior placement proceedings that 

concerns those issues irrelevant. Protective placement under WIS. STAT. ch. 55 

focuses on individuals with long-term and, in some cases, incurable conditions. 

See Helen E.F., 340 Wis. 2d 500, ¶25. Reports, testimony, and other documents 

from prior proceedings that contain opinions from qualified medical professionals 

and other information about an individual’s condition and needs can be relevant to 
No. 2024AP759-FT

6

a circuit court’s analysis of an individual’s present status and whether the

individual continues to meet the requirements for protective placement. 

Consideration of this evidence is not contrary to Watts’ recognition that 

protectively placed individuals are entitled to have their placement status reviewed 

periodically. And as this court noted in J.M., an individual may attack evidence 

from prior proceedings by “request[ing] an independent evaluation under WIS.

STAT. § 55.18(3)(b)3. [or] call[ing] his or her own witnesses” to show “that the 

[prior] opinions ... are stale or that the placed individual’s underlying conditions 

or needs have materially changed.” J.M., No. 2022AP2035, ¶21. Accordingly, 

this court will not exclude from its analysis the reports and hearing testimony 

related to Samuel’s past protective placements. 

I. Prior Protective Placements

¶10 In April 2020, the County filed petitions for protective placement 

and guardianship over Samuel. A report filed by the County stated that Samuel, 

who had been living with his elderly mother, had been emergently placed because 

he “was unable to care for himself and his mother was no longer able to meet his 

needs.” The report noted Samuel’s “long history of alcohol abuse” and described 

him as “intoxicated constantly” and as having memory problems, delusions, 

paranoia, and being verbally and emotionally abusive towards his mother. The 

report also described injuries Samuel had sustained as the result of multiple falls at 

his mother’s home and noted that he “had not taken any of his prescribed 

medications, including seizure medications, since sometime prior to moving into 

his mother’s home.” The County recommended protective placement at a skilled 

nursing facility based on the following:

 [Samuel] has an extensive history of alcohol related 

problems. Cognitive deficits have been noted for years. 
No. 2024AP759-FT

7

[Samuel]’s ongoing alcohol abuse has caused him to 

neglect his health and basic needs, and has led to a further 

deterioration of his cognitive functioning. At this time, 

[Samuel] is incapable of managing for his own care and 

safety. [Samuel] remains disoriented and forgetful. He 

does not have insight into his current needs. He requires 

assistance with basic activities of daily living. 

A court-appointed guardian ad litem agreed with the County’s recommendation. 

¶11 A report prepared by a psychologist who examined Samuel noted 

that his “[m]edical history [was] significant for chronic alcohol abuse, esophagitis, 

gastritis, hyperlipidemia, lung cancer, and unspecified seizure with alcohol.” The 

report also stated that a “CT of [Samuel’s] head showed generalized cerebral and 

cerebellar atrophy and chronic white matter disease.” The report described 

Samuel as “not eating properly, taking his medications, or able to care for 

himself.” The psychologist diagnosed Samuel with “Alcohol-related persisting 

dementia” and opined that he met the four statutory requirements for protective 

placement. 

¶12 The circuit court held a hearing at which the psychologist testified 

that Samuel’s ability to make decisions and care for himself was unlikely to 

improve given Samuel’s then-current level of cognitive functioning and years of 

alcohol abuse. The court found Samuel to be incompetent due to a “degenerative 

brain disorder” and “other like incapacities,” appointed a guardian for him, and 

ordered protective placement.

3

 

¶13 The County filed a petition for annual review of Samuel’s protective 

placement in April 2021, along with the statutorily required annual report of his

 

3

 The Honorable Paul V. Malloy entered the orders placing Samuel in protective 

placement and appointing a guardian.
No. 2024AP759-FT

8

condition. At that time, staff at the facility where Samuel lived assisted him in 

managing his medications and making meals. The report described Samuel as 

continuing to engage in problematic behaviors such as scheduling medical 

appointments without staff knowledge, threatening and falsely accusing staff, and

stealing items from the medication cart. He also reportedly broke into a staff 

office and “attempted to break into other residents[’] room[s].” Because Samuel 

was “continuously causing problems” at the facility, staff recommended he be 

moved to a “smaller home” which could provide needed “supervision for [his] 

safety.” 

¶14 The circuit court ordered an independent evaluation of Samuel. The

psychologist who performed the evaluation submitted a report setting forth her 

opinion that he continued to meet the statutory criteria for guardianship and 

protective placement. The report recounted Samuel’s family history of mental 

illness, his “long history of severe alcohol abuse” and associated “chronic health 

issues,” and incidents of disruptive and aggressive behavior at several care 

facilities during his first year in protective placement. It summarized the 

psychologist’s interview of Samuel, identifying as “[n]oteworthy ... his denial and 

minimization of problems or behaviors that could place him in a negative light” 

and his “deni[al of] any history whatsoever of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related 

medical issues.” The psychologist also noted that although Samuel had “shown 

significant improvement in basic [activities of daily living], ambulation and 

overall cognition, his adjustment ha[d] continued to be hindered by behavioral 

disturbance and lack of insight into his serious alcohol condition that led to his 

present legal situation.” 

¶15 Based on the information summarized in the report, the psychologist 

diagnosed Samuel with mild neurocognitive disorder with behavioral disturbance, 
No. 2024AP759-FT

9

severe alcohol use disorder, and unspecified bipolar and related disorder. In terms 

of his then-current functioning, she wrote that 

[Samuel]’s self-report was unreliable and discrepant with 

prior collateral sources and current data. He denied or 

minimized behaviors, including alcohol abuse, that led to 

his present situation. He flatly denied any alcohol-related 

functional impairment or alcohol-related medical issues. 

Striking was his inflated self-image and blame of others for 

his predicaments.... [Samuel] displayed a serious lack of 

insight into the alcohol-related basis for his hospitalization, 

his complicated withdrawal, encephalopathy and identified 

medical conditions associated with his alcohol use. 

Though aware of his seizure disorder, he disclaimed ever 

having seizures during alcohol withdrawal. He dismissed 

the accuracy of collateral data, challenged the reliability of 

the source, and persisted in demanding proof.

In concluding that Samuel’s guardianship should be continued, the psychologist 

wrote that “[h]is condition is likely to remain permanent ... though the course of 

his recovery is difficult to predict with certainty as improvement in behavior/mood 

can be more stubborn than for cognition.” With respect to protective placement, 

she opined that there “continue[d] to be clear and convincing evidence that 

[Samuel] is so incapable of providing for his own care and custody as to create a 

substantial risk of serious harm to himself and others.” Of import to this opinion, 

she noted Samuel’s “lack[ of] insight into his serious alcohol abuse,” which 

presented an “elevated risk” that his alcohol use would increase if he were not 

supervised and lead to “financial mismanagement, self-neglect and serious 

biomedical complications.” 

¶16 The circuit court held a hearing in August 2021 at which it heard 

testimony from the psychologist, Samuel, and his guardian ad litem. The court 

concluded that Samuel met the requirements for continued protective placement
No. 2024AP759-FT

10

but ordered that he be housed in a less restrictive environment given the “great 

strides” he had made since his emergency placement.

4

 

¶17 In February 2022, the circuit court granted a petition filed by the 

County to modify Samuel’s placement from the supervised apartment in which he 

had been living back to a locked facility. The change was prompted by Samuel’s 

consumption of alcohol in his apartment, which led to him falling and becoming 

verbally aggressive towards others. Samuel’s case manager also testified that he 

had not been fully compliant in taking his medications or attending medical 

appointments. His guardian ad litem agreed that he needed to move “to a facility 

that can manage his behavior ... and keep[] him abstaining from alcohol.” Based 

on this testimony, the court concluded that continued “protective placement is 

appropriate and modification to a locked unit is absolutely necessary for him.”5 

¶18 In March 2022, the County filed another petition to continue 

Samuel’s protective placement. Once again, the circuit court ordered an 

independent evaluation per Samuel’s request. The examining psychologist filed a 

report reviewing Samuel’s extensive placement history, prior diagnoses, and the 

psychologist’s impressions from his interview with Samuel. The psychologist 

noted mild or moderate impairments in orientation, sensory/motor function, 

communication, and memory along with severe impairments in reasoning, 

executive functioning, and emotional/behavioral functioning. The psychologist 

also opined that Samuel’s “most appropriate diagnosis at this time appears to be 

 

4

 The Honorable Steven M. Cain signed the August 2, 2021 order continuing Samuel’s 

protective placement. 

5

 Judge Cain signed the order modifying Samuel’s placement to a locked facility. 
No. 2024AP759-FT

11

alcohol induced neurocognitive disorder, amnestic-confabulatory type, alcohol use 

disorder, and unspecified bipolar disorder.” He explained that Samuel’s 

impairments interfered with his ability to perform tasks necessary to function 

independently:

 His lack of insight and recognition of past and ongoing 

concerns as well as his identified neurocognitive challenges 

secondary to his alcohol use impact his ability to 

effective[ly] evaluate information and to use it effectively 

in a decision making process. These deficits also impact 

his ability to manage his property and finances effectively 

and to meet[] essential requir[e]ments for health and safety 

or provide for his own support. 

The psychologist agreed that Samuel’s incapacity rendered him “so incapable of 

providing for his[] own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious 

harm to himself[] or others” and recommended that he continue to be placed in a 

locked setting with round-the-clock supervision. Samuel’s guardian ad litem 

agreed with that recommendation. After a hearing in June 2022, the circuit court 

granted the County’s petition.6 

II. The 2023 Annual Review

¶19 The County filed a third petition to continue Samuel’s protective 

placement in April 2023 along with an annual report of his condition. The report 

was authored by Julie Schlehlein, who works for the County as an adult protective 

services supervisor. 

¶20 In her report, Schlehlein listed Samuel’s prior diagnoses as including 

“[b]ipolar disorder, personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety 

 

6

 Judge Cain entered the June 20, 2022 order continuing Samuel’s protective placement.
No. 2024AP759-FT

12

disorder, mild cognitive impairment, alcohol dependence with other alcoholinduced disorder” and “history of traumatic brain injury.” She listed him as 

“Independent” in the areas of eating, dressing, toileting, mobility, and transfers but

noted that his caregivers had to complete other tasks for him, including meal 

preparation, shopping, housekeeping, laundry, and medication management. She 

described Samuel as “relatively physically able” and requiring “minimal 

support/supervision for some activities of daily living” but noted that he “has 

frequent and repetitive health concerns,” “does not always retain information 

(explanations, appointment information, etc[.]) that is given to him,” and “is often 

frustrated that his health care is not addressed in the timeframe or manner that he 

wishes.” 

¶21 With respect to Samuel’s mental condition, Schlehlein checked 

boxes in the report next to the following descriptions: 

 “Does not fully recognize/understand his/her needs”

 “Requires supervision for safety and well-being”

 “Demonstrates impaired decision-making abilities (insight, 

judgment, and/or reasoning)” 

 “Refuses necessary support or assistance for care needs”

 “Is an elopement/wandering risk”

 “Displays verbally or physically aggressive behavior”

 “Engages in self-injurious or other dangerous behavior”

 “Requires support to regulate mood or behavior” 

The report also relayed comments from a social worker at Clearview, the facility 

at which Samuel resided, that he “continues to struggle with unit rules” and 

“demonstrates inappropriate behavior.” Schlehlein also wrote that Samuel has 
No. 2024AP759-FT

13

attempted to assert control over his finances and medical care in a manner that has 

impaired his guardian’s ability to do so and that he “continues to make efforts to 

circumvent his [g]uardian’s authority over his [p]erson and [e]state.” The report 

concludes with the views of Samuel’s guardian and case manager that his 

placement in a secure unit should be continued. Schlehlein testified at the hearing,

consistent with her report, that Samuel’s protective placement should be continued 

at the same level of restriction. 

¶22 The County’s other witness, Leah Staiduhar, is a social service 

specialist at Clearview who has worked with Samuel since his admission in April 

2022.7 She testified that Samuel receives medication three times per day but has 

not taken sufficient responsibility for administering it because he does not always 

“seek out the nurse” to obtain it. With respect to meal preparation, she testified 

that Samuel “has a history of unsafe food practices,” such as leaving milk out until 

it curdled. Samuel is unable to grocery shop or prepare his own meals because he 

lives in a locked portion of the facility. She testified that Clearview coordinates 

Samuel’s medical appointments to make sure he sees the appropriate providers

and that Samuel would, “[i]f left to his own,” schedule excessive appointments 

and “seek out additional providers.” 

¶23 Staiduhar also testified about other aspects of Samuel’s behavior. 

According to her, Samuel tries to “wander[] off” and “exit the household ... 

roughly ten to fifteen times per quarter.” She explained that Samuel is supervised 

when he leaves Clearview because “[h]e lacks self-awareness and safety” and 

 

7

 Staiduhar, who has a master’s degree in professional counseling, was the only witness 

at the June 2022 hearing on Samuel’s 2022 extension of placement.
No. 2024AP759-FT

14

“would likely acquire things that can put both himself as well as peers and staff in 

danger.” For example, when he goes to a medical appointment, Samuel will 

“rummage[] through cabinets” and try to steal office supplies and medical 

supplies—“pretty much anything that’s not fixed down that he can get his hands 

on.” Staiduhar also testified that Samuel has “verbal outbursts” as often as “every 

couple of days,” adopts a “posturing” stance at times in which he clenches his fists 

and appears as if he is “looking to strike and/or get physical with somebody,” and 

often threatens staff that he will sue them or “call local authorities” if he does not 

get his way. She described one incident in December 2022 in which Samuel was 

upset at a perceived delay in staff providing his medication and injured himself by 

hitting his head on a door frame “numerous times.” Staiduhar testified further that 

Samuel can be a positive or negative influence towards his peers “depend[ing] on 

his mood” and that he had recently destroyed a DVD belonging to someone else.

¶24 Staiduhar described Samuel as having “a great sense of humor and 

... an amazing ability to debate topics.” But she did not believe that anything had 

improved for him in the past year and that he continued to struggle with memory 

problems and “lack of insight into his current mental health conditions.”

¶25 Samuel’s guardian ad litem also filed a report recommending 

continued protective placement. Her report summarized Samuel’s history in 

protective placement, including his transfer in 2021 to a less restrictive setting, his 

subsequent “struggles with mental health and AODA issues,” and later transfer to 

a more restrictive locked unit. The circuit court appointed a psychologist to 

independently evaluate Samuel, but her report is not in the record and neither party 

called her as a witness at the hearing. 
No. 2024AP759-FT

15

¶26 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court concluded that the 

“County ha[d] met its burden and that the protective placement ... at Clearview is 

the least restrictive” placement option for Samuel. The court subsequently entered 

an order memorializing its findings that Samuel met the four statutory 

requirements for protective placement, including that he suffers from a 

“degenerative brain disorder” and “other like incapacities” that render him so 

unable to care for himself “as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to 

[himself] or others.” 

DISCUSSION

¶27 This court reviews a protective placement order under a mixed 

standard of review. A circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed deferentially 

and will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT.

§ 805.17(2). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is against the great weight 

and clear preponderance of the evidence.” Metropolitan Assocs. v. City of 

Milwaukee, 2018 WI 4, ¶62, 379 Wis. 2d 141, 905 N.W.2d 784. This court 

reviews de novo the legal question whether the evidence meets the requirements 

for continued protective placement. Coston v. Joseph P., 222 Wis. 2d 1, 23, 586 

N.W.2d 52 (Ct. App. 1998).

¶28 Samuel challenges the circuit court’s order on two grounds. First, he 

argues that the County did not meet its burden of proof because it did not present 

testimony from a medical expert that he met the four statutory requirements for 

protective placement. He cites in support Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 

WI App 223, ¶13, 267 Wis. 2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377, in which this court stated 

that “the government must present a witness who is qualified by experience, 

training and independent knowledge of [an individual]’s mental health to give a 
No. 2024AP759-FT

16

medical or psychological opinion on each of [the requirements.]” Samuel 

contends that neither witness presented by the County was “a mental health expert 

.... qualified to testify whether [he] met the standards to continue protective 

placement.” 

¶29 The County contends that Samuel forfeited this argument by failing 

to raise it in the circuit court. See State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, ¶10, 235 Wis. 2d 

486, 611 N.W.2d 727 (“Issues that are not preserved at the circuit court ... 

generally will not be considered on appeal.”). Samuel disagrees, arguing that his 

counsel’s argument at the hearing that the County had not presented evidence to 

establish that he has a disability that is, or is likely to be, permanent, was sufficient 

to preserve the issue because permanency is a point for which expert testimony is 

required. 

¶30 This court need not decide whether counsel’s argument was 

sufficient to preserve the issue Samuel raises for appeal, because even if it was, the

argument fails on its merits. Samuel points to no statute requiring testimony from 

a medical professional in a continued protective placement proceeding, and the 

case on which he relies, Therese B., is materially distinguishable from the present 

case. 

¶31 Therese B. involved an appeal from a protective placement and the 

establishment of a guardianship. This is significant because, as this court observed 

in J.M., “[a] medical opinion is required for the appointment of a guardian, but 

there is no such corresponding requirement for a continued protective placement 

order.” J.M., No. 2022AP2035, ¶23. Specifically, WIS. STAT. § 54.36(1) provides 

that when a guardianship is sought, “a physician or psychologist, or both, shall 

examine the proposed ward and furnish a written report stating the physician’s or 
No. 2024AP759-FT

17

psychologist’s professional opinion regarding the presence and likely duration of 

any medical or other condition causing the proposed ward to have incapacity.” In 

contrast, the statutory provision that governs annual reviews of protective 

placements requires a county to prepare a “written evaluation of the physical, 

mental and social condition of the individual and the service needs of the 

individual,” WIS. STAT. § 55.18(1)(a), but no language in that provision or the 

provision providing for an annual hearing “even suggests that the reviewer or any 

testifying witness must have medical expertise.” J.M., No. 2022AP2035, ¶23. 

Samuel points to no other legal authority requiring testimony from a medical 

professional at each annual review hearing.

¶32 Samuel’s other argument is that the County failed to establish the 

third statutory criterion for continued protective placement—that he suffers from 

“developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder, serious and persistent 

mental illness, or other like incapacities” that render him “so totally incapable of 

providing for his ... own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious 

harm to himself.” See WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1)(c). In making this argument, Samuel 

discusses only the testimony of Staiduhar and Schlehlein and the annual report 

prepared by Schlehlein in connection with the 2023 annual review of his 

placement status. But as this court has concluded, it is also appropriate to consider 

reports, testimony, and other items in the record from Samuel’s initial protective 

placement in 2020 and the annual reviews in 2021 and 2022. Considering those 

additional materials, this court concludes that sufficient evidence exists in the 

record to establish the third criterion.

¶33 Since his initial protective placement, Samuel has been diagnosed by 

multiple psychologists with alcohol-related disorders and other serious mental 

health conditions. The psychologist who examined him in 2020 diagnosed him 
No. 2024AP759-FT

18

with “Alcohol-related persisting dementia,” which he identified as an “[o]ther like 

incapacit[y]” for the purpose of WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1)(c). The psychologist also 

noted that a CT scan of Samuel’s brain revealed “generalized cerebral and 

cerebellar atrophy and chronic white matter disease,” conditions that involve 

damage to, or loss of, brain tissue. The following year, a different psychologist 

diagnosed Samuel with mild neurocognitive disorder, severe alcohol use disorder, 

and unspecified bipolar and related disorder. She opined that his condition,

though “difficult to predict with certainty,” was “likely to remain permanent.” In 

2022, Samuel was evaluated by a third psychologist who diagnosed him with 

“alcohol induced neurocognitive disorder, ... alcohol use disorder, and unspecified 

bipolar disorder.” Samuel requested, and was granted, an independent 

examination in 2023, but a report of that examination was not filed with the circuit 

court. Nonetheless, there is nothing to suggest that the opinions of the 

psychologists who previously examined Samuel have grown stale over time or that 

the alcohol-related and other disorders have materially improved or resolved such 

that they no longer constitute “degenerative brain disorder[s], serious and 

persistent mental illness[es], or other like incapacities” for the purpose of 

§ 55.08(1)(c). 

¶34 The record also supports the conclusion that Samuel’s long-standing 

mental health issues continue to render him “so totally incapable of providing for 

his ... own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself 

... or others.” WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1)(c). Samuel was protectively placed in 2020 

after his chronic alcohol abuse left him with significant cognitive impairments and 

unable to care for himself and take prescribed medications. The psychologist who 

examined him that year testified that his impaired ability to care for himself and 

make decisions was unlikely to improve, even if he stopped abusing alcohol. 
No. 2024AP759-FT

19

Since that time, medical professionals and care providers have consistently 

described Samuel as having issues with memory and decision-making, lacking 

insight into his issues with alcohol, and neglectful of his health and basic needs. 

On the one occasion in 2021 when Samuel’s placement was changed to a less 

restrictive environment, he was ordered back into a locked facility within six 

months because he had resumed drinking which led to him falling and becoming 

verbally aggressive towards others. 

¶35 The impairments and issues that prompted Samuel’s protective 

placement in 2020 continue to impair his ability to care for himself. In her April 

2023 report, Schlehlein noted that Samuel was able to complete some activities of 

daily living with minimal or no supervision or assistance, but also that (1) he 

continues to require supervision for his safety and well-being; (2) his decisionmaking continues to be impaired; (3) he is verbally and physically aggressive 

towards others and “[e]ngages in self-injurious or other dangerous behavior”; and 

(4) he is unable to control his mood and behavior. Schlehlein’s report also 

described Samuel’s efforts to circumvent his guardian by making health care and 

financial decisions without the guardian’s knowledge or consent. In addition, 

Staiduhar testified that Samuel remains unable to assume responsibility for taking 

his medications, frequently attempts to leave the Clearview facility where he 

resides, engaged in self-injurious behavior when his medications were not, in his 

view, distributed timely, and continues to lack insight into his mental health 

conditions. In focusing on portions of the 2023 annual report and hearing 

testimony that address behaviors he considers merely annoying or relatively 

minor, Samuel ignores the larger, years-long record of his time in protective 

placement, which establishes that he continues to lack the ability care for himself 
No. 2024AP759-FT

20

and function independently and that he continues to pose a substantial risk of 

serious harm to himself or others. 

¶36 Though this court concludes that the record supports the circuit 

court’s order continuing Samuel’s protective placement, it notes that the court’s 

oral ruling and its written order issued are not entirely consistent in identifying the 

specific portions of the record on which it relied in finding that Samuel continued 

to meet the statutory criteria for protective placement. In its oral ruling, the court 

concluded that the County had met its burden based on the testimony presented at 

the hearing. In the written order, however, the court’s findings were made “[a]fter 

consideration of the reports and other documents on file, all factors required by the 

statutes, and such additional information presented.” This discrepancy is 

noteworthy because if a circuit court determines that continued protective 

placement is appropriate, it must “include in the order the information relied upon 

as a basis for the order.” WIS. STAT. § 55.18(3)(e)1. Given this statutory 

directive, a circuit court ordering continued protective placement should, as stated 

in J.M., “explain on the record that it is basing its findings, at least in part, on 

previously admitted documents within the record or prior adjudicative facts, and 

also explain why and how it is doing so.” J.M., No. 2022AP2035, ¶28. Making a 

more complete record as to those portions of the record upon which the court’s 

decision is based will ensure compliance with WIS. STAT. § 55.18(3)(e)1. and 

facilitate appellate review of protective placement orders.
No. 2024AP759-FT

21

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.