### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 22, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff 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 W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP877 Cir. Ct. No. 2022GN58 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II

I N THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND PRO TECTIVE PLACEMENT OF M.A.S:
W AUKESHA C OUNTY D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH AND H UMAN S ERVICES , P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,
V . M.A.S.,
R ESPONDENT , R.B.,
O THER P ARTY - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County: MICHAEL P. MAXWELL , Judge. Dismissed

.No. 2022AP877

2 ¶ 1 NEUBAUER, J. 1 R.B., referred to herein by the pseudonym Rose , appeals from an order granting a petition for protective placement over her mother, M.A.S., referred to herein as Mary. Rose argues that her mother’s due process rights wer e violated at the hearing on the petition and that the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services did not present evidence sufficient to show that her mother was in need of protective placement . This court
cannot reach the merits of th ese arg ument s , however, because Rose lacks standing to appeal the order. W ISCONSIN S TAT

. § 55.20 provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from a final judgment or final order” under W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55 “by the subject of the petition or the individual’s guardian, by any petitioner, or by the representative of the public.” Rose is not one of the persons authorized by the statute to bring an appeal , and h er status as an “[i]nterested person” in this proceeding does not permit her to appeal the order

. See W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4). A d ditionally, Rose is not otherwise “aggrieved” sufficient to confer standing

. Thus, her appeal must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND
¶ 2 In March 2022, the County filed a petition for protective placement of Mary under W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55 and a petition seeking the appointment of a guardian under W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 54. The County alleged that Mary had been diagnosed with a “Major Neurocognitive disorder ... with behavioral disturbances ,” had been “living in a car or staying at a motel” for the last three years despite owning two homes, “ha [ d ] not taken care of herself physically or

1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2)( d) (2021

- 22). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021

- 22 version unless otherwise noted.No. 2022AP877

3 addressed her multiple medical conditions,” and was “at significant risk of harm and requires [twenty

- four

- ]hour care and supervision for her safety.” Rose, one of Mary’s three daughters, did not file an objection to either petition.
¶ 3 Counsel was appointed to represent Mary , and after an initial hearing, a court commissioner appointed a nonfamily member to be her temporar y guardian. The circuit court held a final hearing on the petitions on April 7, 2022. Mary’s guardian waived her appearance. Rose and Mary’s two other daughters testified at the hearing. When ask ed to confirm that she did not oppose a guardianship for her mother, Rose replied, “I would like for my sister, my two sisters to [be coguardians].” Rose was not asked any questions about the issue of protective placement.
¶ 4 At the concl usion of the hearing, the court found that the County had met its burden of showing th at protective placement and th e appointment of a permanent guardian w ere appropriate

. The court subsequently entered two orders, one appointing separate guardians of Mar y’s person and estate (neither of which were Rose’s sisters) and the other granting protective placement over Mary.
¶ 5 After entry of these orders, an attorney filed an appearance for Rose and a notice of appeal “from the Order on Petiti on for Protective Placement or Protective Services .” Mary , who was represented by counsel and has a guardian, has not appealed from either order.
¶ 6 The County filed a motion to dismiss Rose’s appeal, arguing that she lack s standing to ap peal the protective placement order under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 and that she did not timely file a notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief as required by W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.30(2)(b). This court addressed the County’s motion in an order dated October 7, 2022. As a preliminary matter, this courtNo. 2022AP877

4 con cluded that Rose’s appeal is limited to the protective placement order because her notice of appeal “does not refer, in any way, to the [ W IS

. S TAT .] ch

. 54 guardianship order.” This court then denied the County’s motion but directed the parties to brief several issues related to Rose’s ability to bring this appeal

. ¶ 7 First, this court ordered the parties to address whether W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 bars Rose’s appeal . More specifically, the parties were directed to address whether the word “may” in § 55.20 suggests that persons other than those listed in the statute can appeal a protective placement order. In addition, this court directed the parties to address “the significance, if any, of the provisions of ... § 55.20 and the ‘interested person’ definition in W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4)(a).” Finally, the parties were ordered to address whether, “[s]etting aside ... § 55.20, [Rose is ] aggrieved

suc h that she has standing to appeal the ... protective placement order

. ” 2 Having

r eceived the parties’ briefs, this court now concludes that Rose is not authorized to appeal under § 55.20 and is not otherwise “aggrieved” to confer standing.

DISCUSSION
I. Rose I s N ot Authorized to Appeal the Order Under W IS . S TAT . § 55.20
. ¶ 8 W ISCONSIN S TAT

. § 55.20 addresses appeals of final orders and judgments in protective placement and protective services proceedings. Whether Rose has standing to maintain this appeal turns on the meaning of § 55.20.

2 The order also directed the parties to address whether Rose was “required to comply with W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.30.” Because this court conclude s that Rose lacks standing to appeal the protective placement order, we need not address this issue. See Sweet v. Berge , 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67, 334 N.W.2d 559 (Ct. App. 1983) (when one issue is dispositive of an appeal, this court need not reach other issues).No. 2022AP877

5 Statutory interpretation is a legal issue that this court resolves de novo. Coston v. Joseph P. , 222 Wis. 2d 1, 10, 586 N.W.2d 52 (Ct. App. 1998).
¶ 9 W ISC ONSIN S TAT

. § 55.20 reads as follows: An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from a final judgment or final order under this chapter within the time period specified in [ W IS

. S TAT

. §] 808.04(3) and in accordance with [ W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE ] 809.30 by the subject of the petition or the i ndividual’ s guardian, by any petitioner, or by the representative of the public.

Section 55.20 went into effect in April 2006; before then, the text of the statute (with minor differences not relevant here ) wa s located in W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.06(18) (2003

- 04). See 2005 Wis. Act 264, § 155.
¶ 10 When interpreting statutory language, our aim “is to determine what the statute means so that it may be given its full, proper, and intended effect.” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. To do so, this court gives the language “its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially

- defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning.” Id. , ¶45. This court interpret s statutory language “in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely

- related statutes; and reas onably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.” Id. , ¶46. “If this process of analysis yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascert ainment of its meaning.” Id. (citation omitt ed).
¶ 11 W IS CONSIN S TAT

. § 55.20 identifie s four persons who may appeal a protective placement order : (1) “th e subject of the petition”; (2) “ the individual’s guardian”; (3) “any petitioner”; or (4) “the representative of the public.” Id. RoseNo. 2022AP877

6 does not (and cannot) argue that she is one of these persons . Instead, she contends that the word “may” in the statute suggests that persons other than those identified in the statute can bring an appeal and that she , as an “ [ i ] nterested person” un der W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4) , is such a person. 3
¶ 12 This court disagrees

. As in other statutes, t he word “may” is used in W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 to confer opportunity or permission to take an action

. See Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. C o. , 2012 WI 26, ¶32, 339 Wis. 2d 125, 810 N.W.2d 465 (“The word ‘may’ is ordinarily used to grant permission or to indicate possibility.”). In § 55.20, the verb phrase “may be taken ” conveys permission (or an opportunity) to appeal a final judgment or order in a ch apter 55 proceeding

. And though the statute is written in the passive voice , the legislature did not leave the actors who are given that opportunity undetermined. To the contrary, in the latter portion of the statute , it specifically identif ied the four persons who can bring an appeal. Doing so is evidence of the legislature’s intent not to extend the appeal right to others. See State v. Dylan S. , 2012 WI App 25, ¶26, 339 Wis. 2d 442, 813 N.W.2d 229 (“Where a statute lists items included in its purview, omission of an item is evidence that the legislature intended to exclude it.”). This court sees nothing in the text of the statute itself to support Rose ’s contention t hat the legislature’s use of the word “may” signifies its intent t o exten d the statutory right to appeal to persons other than those identified in the statute.
¶ 13 T his court must also interpret W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 in relation to

“ surrounding or closely

- related statutes .” See Kalal , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , ¶46. The

3 The County does not dispute that Rose, an adult child of Mary, is an “ [ i ] nterested person” under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4)

. This court agrees. See § 55.01(4)(a) (“ ‘ Interested person ’ means ... [a]n adult relative or friend of an individual sought to be protected under this chapter.”).No. 2022AP877

7 County cites several other provisions in W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55 in which the word “may” is used in the permissive sense to empower specifically identified actors to take some action

. See, e.g. , W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.15(2) (identifying persons who “may transfer an in dividual under a protective placement order ” ); W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.16(2) (identifying persons who “may file a petition ... for modification of an order for protective services or protective placement”); W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.17(1) (identifying persons who “may file a petition at any time for termination of an order for protective placement or protective services”). Although these statutes are written in the active ( as opposed to passive ) voice , they reflect a common us age of “may” throughout chapter 55 to confer permi ssion to take a particular action on the
persons listed in the statute.
II. Rose’s Status as an “Interested [ P ] erson” Does Not Give Her the Right to Appeal.
¶ 14 Rose relies on her status as an “[ i ] nterested person” under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4) , but that status undercuts her argument for standing more than it helps. Ch apter 55 specifically empowers interested person s to take specific

a ctions in protective placement proceeding s. In particular , an interested person
may : (1) “request[] protective servi ces on behalf of an individual

in need of services,” W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.05(2)(b), or “file a petition for appointment of a guardian and for protective services or protective placement for an individual,” W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.075(1); (2) r equest that the hearing on a p rotective placement petition be moved to a different location so that the individual who is the subject of the petition can attend, W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.10(2); (3) “file a petition ... objecting to a proposed transfer or to an emergency transfer” of an individual subject to a protective placement order, W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.15(6);No. 2022AP877

8 (4) “file a petition ... for modification of an order for protective services or protective placement,” W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.16(2)(a); and (5) “file a petition ... for termination of an order for protective placement or protective services,” W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.17(1). In each of these provisions, the legislature included the term “interested person” to signify that such a person may take the specified action. Notably, the l egislature provided the opportunity for appeal of an adverse decision by those empowered to take such actions as a “ petitioner ” under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20. In contrast, the legislature did not include an interested person among those in § 55.20 who may appeal a protective placement order , though it could have done so

. ¶ 15 When these statutes are viewed together, it becomes apparent that the legislature has taken care to identify the actors who can take certain actions in relation to proc eedings under W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55. Given the express inclusion of “interested person” in the provisions listed above, the absence of that term in W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 is significant evidence that the legislature did not intend an in terested person to be able to appeal a chapter 55 order

. ¶ 16 This court’s decision in Knight v. Milwaukee County , 2001 WI App 147, 246 Wis. 2d 691, 633 N.W.2d 222, rev’d on other grounds , 2002 WI 27, 251 Wis. 2d 10, 640 N.W.2d 773 ( Knight I ) , provides additional guidance that merely being an “interested person” does not confer standing to appeal a protective placement order. In that case, two persons who served as a ward’s “power

- of

attorney agents” and describ ed themselves as “interested persons” sought to appea l orders appointing a guardian for the ward and directing her protective placement. Knight I , 246 Wis. 2d 691, ¶1. T his court held that the agents lacked standing to appeal the orders under a probate statute, W IS

. S TAT

. § 879.27. Knight I , 246No. 2022AP877

9 Wis. 2d 6 91, ¶1. O ur supreme court reversed after concluding that the agents did have standing under that statute

. Knight v. Milwaukee County , 2002 WI 27, ¶1, 251 Wis. 2d 10, 640 N.W.2d 773 ( Knight II )

. But this court in Knight I also examined whether the agents had standing to appeal under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.06(18) (1999

- 2000) , the predecessor to W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 . On that issue, this court concluded that the agents did not have standing because they had not filed the petition seeking protective placement over th e ward and thus were not “petitioner[s]” under the statute. Knight I , 246 Wis. 2d 691, ¶22. Notably , this court did not conclude that the agents could bring the appeal merely because they were interested persons; they had to be one of the persons authorized in § 55.06(18) (1999

- 2000)

. See Knight I , 246 Wis. 2d 691, ¶22. The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not address this conclusion in its decision but instead expressly limit ed its holding to § 879.27

. Knight II , 251 Wis

. 2d 10, ¶19 n.5. Accordingly, this court’s analysis of § 55.06(18) (1999

- 2000) in Knight I retains precedential value. See State v. Schmidt , 201 6 WI App 45, ¶48 n.11, 370 Wis. 2d 139, 884 N.W.2d 510 (“[T]he general rule is that holdings of [the court of appeals] not specifically reversed on direct appeal to the supreme court retain precedential value.”).
¶ 17 Rose ’s argument regarding her “ [ i ] nterested person” status is grounded in two cases decided by this court, Coston , 222 Wis. 2d 1, and Carla S. v. Frank B. , 2001 WI App 97, 242 Wis. 2d 605, 626 N.W.2d 330. 4 In Coston ,

4 Rose cites and extensively discuss es Carla S. v. Frank B. , 2001 WI App 97, 242 Wis. 2d 605, 626 N.W.2d 330 , for the first time in her reply brief, leaving the County without an opportunity to respond. For this reason, this court could decline to address the case. See Techworks, LLC v. Wille , 2009 WI App 101, ¶28, 318 Wis. 2d 488, 770 N.W.2d 727. However, for the sake of completeness, this court will address it.No. 2022AP877

10 two interested persons

— the niece and sister of Joseph P.

— appealed from orders appointing guardians for Joseph and ordering protective placement. Coston , 222 Wis. 2d at 4. The niece and sister argued that , as “[ i ] nterested person [ s ]” under a guardianship statute, W IS

. S TAT

. § 880.01(6) (1995

- 96) , 5 they had the right to participate at the circuit court hearing on the petitions and to object to the court’s reliance on cer tain evidence. Coston , 222 Wis. 2d at 4 , 6

. They argued that th e circuit court erred in not holding a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petitions

. Id.
¶ 18 To address these arguments, t his court examined the rights of int erested persons in guardianship and protective placement proceedings

. Specifically, t his court identified certain rights conferred upon interested persons in the guardianship statutes but noted that “[n] o statute provides for interested persons to demand a trial, present evidence, or raise evidentiary objections in guardianship and protective placement hearings

— whether contested or uncontested.” Id. at 21. 6 Accordingly, this court concluded that no statute or case law “ provides interested persons with un limited rights to participate in the hearing.” Id. at 12

- 13 & n.8. Though “ the statutory provisions for an interested person’s formal participation in guardianship and protective placement hearings are specific and limited,” this court recognized that th e circuit court retained

5 W ISCONSIN S TAT

. § 880.01(6) (1995

- 96) was subsequently repealed , and the definition of “[i]nterested person” was amended a nd relocated to W IS

. S TAT

. § 54.01(17). See 2005 Wis. Act 387, §§ 100, 300.

6 See also W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.10(4)(c) (permitting only the individual who is the subject of a protective placement hearing, the individual’s attorney, and the individual’s guardian ad litem “to present and cross

- examine witnesses” at a hearing on a petition for protective services or protective placement).No. 2022AP877

11 “discretion to allow interested persons to participate [in a hearing] to the extent it would deem appropriate.” Id. at 21.
¶ 19 Three years later, i n Carla S. , this court considered an appeal brought by the daughter of a ward who sought review of an order authorizing her father’s guardian to terminate the father’s life estate in his home. Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶1. The circuit court determined that the daughter had standing to contest the order because she was an “ [ i ] nterested person” under W IS

. S TAT

. § 880.01(6) (1997

- 98) , which accorded that status to an “adult relative ... of a person to be protected” under the guardianship statute. Sec. 880.01(6) (1997

- 98); Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶4. The guardian challen ged the daughter’s standing to bring the appeal. Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶ 4

. In a split decision, this court concluded that the daughter had standing. Id. , ¶10.
¶ 20 In reaching that conclusion, th e majority reviewed some of the

common law standards governing standing , including the “appellate requirement that the right to appeal is limited to persons ‘aggrieved’ by a final judgment or order.” Id. , ¶6 (quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mills , 142 Wis. 2d 215, 217, 418 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App . 1987)). Th e majority then observed that “[i]t would be strange indeed if a person who has been recognized by the legislature as an ‘interested person’ and whose standing has been recognized by the trial court, would nonetheless lack standing to appeal t he very determination for which he or she had standing in the trial court.” Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶6.
¶ 21 Finally, th e majority explained that “interested persons have been judicially recognized as having standing in appellate courts. ” Id. I n support, it cited Bryn v. Thompson , 21 Wis. 2d 24, 123 N.W.2d 5 05 (1963), a guardianship

case in which our supreme court stated that “ [i] n addition to a direct appeal of theNo. 2022AP877

12 initial order , any interested party at any time during the guardianship may petition for a rehearing seeking revocation of the guardian

- ward status.” Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶7 (quoting Bryn , 21 Wis. 2d at 29). T he Carla S. majority then cited this court’s decisio n in Coston , which it said had “affirmed” the aforementioned statement in Bryn

. Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶7. Though

n othing in Coston indicates that any party challenged the ability of the interested persons to appeal the guardianship and protective pl acement orders , the majority in Carla S. stated that this court “would have dismissed the appeal” in Coston if it had “concluded ... that the [interested persons] lacked standing.” 7 Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶7.
¶ 22 None of these cas es establishes Rose’s right to appeal the protective placement order . The discussion in Coston focused on the rights of interested persons to participate in proceedings held in the circuit court. In that discussion , this court focused primarily on rights afforded to interested persons under the guardianship statute s, which were then codified in subchapter I of W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 880 (1995

- 96). See Coston , 222 Wis. 2d at 11

- 13 & n.8, 20

- 22. 8 This court

7 The dissenting judge in Carla S. noted that the standing of the interested persons in Coston “was apparently not challenged” and that the court in Coston did not specifically address the issue of standing. Carla S. , 242 Wis. 2d 605, ¶22 (Deininger, J., dissenting). The dissent concluded further that the daughter was not “aggrieved by the order authorizing her father’s guardian to terminate the life lease” because she was not statutorily entitled to notice of, or to participat ion in, proceedings to terminate the life lease and because her arguments on appeal “relate[d] to alleged violations of [her father]’s rights and interests

— not hers.” Id. , ¶¶23

- 24.

8 Notably, the legislature subsequently codified Coston ’s holding, adding a provision to the guardianship statute which provides that “[a]n interested person may participate in the hearing
on the petition at the court’s discretion.” W IS

. S TAT

. § 54.44(5m) ; s ee also 2005 Wis. Act 264, § 207 (acknowledg ing in a legislative note that the text currently found in § 54.44(5m) was enacted to codify the holding in Coston )

. There was no modification of W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 to recognize a right to appeal by an interested person

. See Strenke v. Hog n er , 2005 WI 25, ¶28, 279 Wis. 2d 52, 694 N.W.2d 296 (“The legislature is presumed to act with full knowledge of existing case law when it enacts a statute.”).No. 2022AP877

13 did not cite any specific rights granted in the chapter governing protective services, W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55. Moreover, n o party in Coston appears to have cited W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.06(18) (1995

- 96), the predecessor to W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 , or even questioned the interested persons’ standing to appeal the guardianship and protective placement orders

. A nd because standing “is not a matter of jurisdiction, but of sound judicial policy” in Wisconsin, Friends of Black River Forest v. Kohler Co. , 2022 WI 52, ¶17, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342 (citation omitted) , this cour t did not need to raise the issue sua sponte before reach ing the substantive issues raised by the parties. See Waushara County v. Graf , 166 Wis. 2d 442, 451, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992) ( explaining that “appellate courts need not and ordinarily will not consider or decide issues which are not specifically raised on appeal”).
¶ 23 Bryn and Carla S. also do not control the outcome here. Both of those decisions arose out of guardianship proceedings; neither involved W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55. Though the pro cedures that govern guardianship and protective placement proceedings are similar in some respects , see , e.g. , Racine County v. P.B. , 2022 WI App 62, ¶¶12

- 13, 405 Wis. 2d 383, 983 N.W.2d 721, the guardianship statute s in effect when this court decided Carla S. ( W IS

. S TAT

. §§ 880.01

- .39 (1997

- 98)) lacked a provision similar to W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 that identified the persons who could appeal a guardianship order . No such provision has been added to the guardianship statute since Carla S. Thus, the langua ge regarding the standing of interested persons to appeal in Bryn and Carla S. is best understood as applying only to guardianship proceedings and not to protective placement actions under chapter 55.
¶ 24 We further note that Wisconsin cou rts must also interpret statutory language “ to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. ” Kalal , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , ¶46.No. 2022AP877

14 Rose fails to explain why a conclusion that she may not appeal the protective placement order under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 would be absurd or u nreasonable. The legislature could reasonably decide to extend to an “interested person” the right to take certain actions in W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 55 proceedings but not to appeal a ch apter 55 order unless the interested person is a petitioner . As noted above, the legislature provided adult relative s and even friend s the opportunity to petition the circuit court to initiate a protective placement proceeding a s well as to modify or terminate a protective placement order. Thus, an adult relative or friend has ot her avenues to pursue , should those options be appropriate

. Moreover, our supreme court has affirmed “ that the constitution requires that individuals who are protectively placed under [ chapter ] 55 receive periodic, automatic judicial review of their place ment [ s ]

. ” Knight II , 251 Wis. 2d 10, ¶47; see also W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.18; State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Cmty. Servs. Bd. , 122 Wis. 2d 65, 77

- 78, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985)

. ¶ 25 Th e legislature ’s decision to allow an adult relative or friend to initiate proceedings in the circuit court and to engage , at the discretion of the circuit court , in the hearing makes sense because such proceedings also provide for t he involvement of the subject and his or her adv ocacy cou nsel, who represent s the subject. See W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.10(4)(a). G uardian s are obligated to advocate for the subject ’s bests interests

. S ee W IS

. S TAT

. §§ 54.18(2)(b), 55.10(4)(b). In other words, multiple participants provide input at the circuit cour t level

. ¶ 26 By contrast, an adult relative or friend has no duty to advocate for the best interests of the individual . Where , as here, an appeal is not taken by the subject or those appointed by the court to advocate for that individual ’s bests interests , the adult relative’s or friend’s interests may not be aligned with those ofNo. 2022AP877

15 the individual. As the County notes, allowing an interested person to appeal a
pr otective placement order which the subject chooses not to contest would expose th at individual to further litigation and possible changes in placement conditions the individual did not seek and does not want. As such, it is neither absurd nor unreasonable that the legislature has not allow ed inte rested persons to appeal
pr otective placement orders , particularly when it allows them to petition for

mo dification or termination and to participate in circuit court proceedings in which others who are obligated to act in the subject’s best interests are involved

. ¶ 27 For these reasons, this court conclude s that Rose’s status as an “[i]nterested person” under W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.01(4) does not give her the right to appeal the protective placement order.
III. Rose Does Not Have Standing to Appeal Bec ause She I s Not Aggrieved by the Circuit Court’s Order.
¶ 28 Lastly, even if this court was to set aside W IS

. S TAT

. § 55.20 , Rose would not have standing to appeal the circuit court’s order directing protective placement for Mary under the common law rules that govern standing

. ¶ 29 “ The rule is that a person may not appeal from a judgment or order unless aggrieved by it. ” Kiser v. Jungbacker , 2008 WI App 88, ¶11, 312 Wis. 2d 621, 754 N.W.2d 180. “ In order to be aggrieved by a judgment or order, that judgment or order must operate on a person’ s rights of property or bear directly on some other interest. ” Knight II , 251 Wis. 2d 10, ¶16. “ A person is aggrieved if the judgment or order bears ‘ directly and injuriou sly ’ upon his or her interests and affects the person ‘in some appreciable manner.’” Kiser , 312 Wis. 2d 621, ¶11 (quoting Weina v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. , 177 Wis. 2d 341, 345, 501 N.W.2d 465 (Ct. App. 1993))

. “The word ‘aggrieved’ refers to a substantia l grievance, a denialNo. 2022AP877

16 of some personal or property right or the imposition of a burden or obligation.” Town of Greenfield v. Joint Cnty. Sch. Comm. , 271 Wis. 442 , 447

- 48, 73 N.W.2d 580 (1955).
¶ 30 Rose’s argument on this point is not well developed . She argues that she was aggrieved by the protective placement order because the circuit court “allowed her to participate and state her objection to having her mother ... placed in a locked facility.” That argument is not sufficient to establish standing to appeal for multiple reasons. First, Rose ’s contention that she objected to her mother’s placement in a locked facility is not factually supported because she cites
to her sister’s testimony at the h earing, not her own. Rose did not object to a guardianship in her testimony

— she merely wanted her sisters to be appointed coguardians.
¶ 31 In addition, Rose was not asked questions about protective placement during her testimony, but eve n if she had been and had opposed protective placement, that would not be sufficient to establish that she is “aggrieved” by the protective placement order. See Kiser , 312 Wis. 2d 621, ¶11. Simply put, Rose has not explained how the protective placement order “directly and injuriously” bears on any legally protected interest of hers

. See i d. (citation omitted). She has not identified any way in which the order infringes on or denies her personal or property rights or imposes any burden or obligation suf ficient to render her “aggrieved

. ” See Town of Greenfield , 271 Wis. at 447

- 48. Though this court is to “liberally construe the law of standing,” Koller v. Liberty Mut

. Ins

. Co. , 190 Wis. 2d 263, 266, 526 N.W.2d 799 (Ct. App. 1994) (citation omitted), Ros e’s case for standing consists of mere disagreement with the court’s decision , which is not enough. See L.P. v. B.G. , 177 Wis. 2d 424, 427, 501 N.W.2d 908No. 2022AP877

17 (Ct. App. 1993) (“[A] strong desire to be heard by the court is not enough to establish standing.”).
¶ 32 The lack of any legally cognizable injury specific to Rose is apparent in the merits arguments she raises. She does not argue that the circuit court’s order violates any of her rights or interests. Instead, Rose contends that her mother “has a huge liberty interest at stake” and that the circuit court violated her mother ’s due process rights by basing its decision in part on the testimony of a psychologist who had not personally examined her. Rose also argues that the
court errone ously exercised its discretion in finding that her mother was not capable of caring for herself and posed “a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.” These are Mary ’s arguments to raise, not Rose’s. They allege injury to Mary ’s right to no t be deprived of liberty without due process, not Rose’s. They do not show that Rose is “aggrieved” by the protective placement order sufficient to confer standing to appeal it.

By the Court.

— Appeal dismissed

. This opinion will not be published. See W I S

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.