00-1137 In the Matter of the Guardianship and Protective Placement of Goldie H.

Listen to this article

“A summary hearing is not an extensive hearing. It is a brief hearing on the record. The person whose protective placement is in question need not be present. The hearing may be in court or may be held by other means, such as a telephone or video conference. A summary hearing is not an evidentiary hearing. It is an opportunity for the court to ascertain that the proper procedures have been followed to ensure a proper continuation of a protective placement, and to make factual findings required by Wis. Stat. sec. 55.06(1). Taking a few moments to protect the rights of our most vulnerable citizens is not an unacceptable cost to society. It is an expression of our humanity. It is a commitment that no person will be warehoused and forgotten by the legal system. We believe we can assure this objective by giving our holding prospective application because the statute already requires annual review. Our goal is to firm up the rights of protectively placed persons, not to disrupt judicial calendars.

“In this case, although the circuit court did not hold a summary hearing before ordering the protective placement continued or make specific factual findings of the four factors in Wis. Stat. sec. 55.06(2), we conclude that its continuation of Goldie H.’s protective placement was undoubtedly correct and does not require a second hearing.”

Affirmed.

CONCURRING OPINION: Wilcox, J. “I write separately because, while I concur with the majority’s disposition of this case, I disagree in part with its reasoning. I agree with the majority insofar as it concludes that in light of the guardian ad litem’s (GAL) thorough report which served as the basis for the circuit court order continuing Goldie H.’s protective placement, there is no reason to remand this case to the circuit court for a hearing. However, I disagree with the majority that State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Community Services Board, 122 Wis.2d 65, 362 N.W.2d 104 (1985), invariably requires circuit courts to hold a hearing during every annual review.”

Prosser, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John E. Joyce, Menomonie

For Respondent: Nicholas P. Lange, Madison