Racine County HSD v. K. M.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
September 30, 2026
To:
Hon. Timothy D. Boyle
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Teresa Hill
Register in Probate
Racine County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Sarah Maureen Kidd
Electronic Notice
Jordan Nickell
Electronic Notice
John P. Serketich
Electronic Notice
Jill Marie Skwor
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1506 Racine County HSD v. K.M. (L.C. #2022GN91)
Before Lazar, P.J., Gundrum, and Grogan, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Kerry1 appeals an order continuing his protective placement under WIS. STAT. ch. 55
(2023-24).2 He also objects to the continuation of his guardianship. Based upon our review of
the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1 This court refers to the subject individual by a pseudonym consistent with WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.19(1)(g), to protect confidentiality.
2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP1506
2
Kerry has been the subject of guardianship and protective placement orders since
November 2022. On September 12, 2024, Racine County filed its petition for annual review of
Kerry’s protective placement, along with its annual protective placement review report. Kerry’s
guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed her report requesting adversary counsel for Kerry and a full due
process hearing. In advance of the due process hearing, Dr. Brooke E. Lundbohm, Psy.D.,
interviewed Kerry and filed an examining psychologist’s report.
A due process hearing was held on January 16, 2025. Kerry appeared in person with his
adversary counsel. Lundbohm testified at the hearing and her report was admitted into evidence.
Specifically, Lundbohm testified Kerry demonstrated impairments on neurocognitive screenings.
She elaborated:
There’s clear data that [Kerry] does possess rather significant and
permanent impairments that essentially interrupt his capacity to
consistently engage in effective problem solving, decision making
related to health, safety, other areas brought -- essentially to take
care of himself.
Lundbohm testified Kerry is able to complete simple tasks of daily living independently,
albeit with cues; however, “[h]e is fully dependent or reliant on others for the more advanced
functional tasks. … such as transportation, finances, problem solving related to health, safety,
taking care of medications, appointments, those kind[s] of things.” Kerry’s “thoughts were laced
with different paranoid themes and the severity of that paranoia essentially was quite prevalent
and interfered with his ability to consistently engage in reality-based discussion.” Lundbohm
opined Kerry’s insight “was remarkably poor” and he “essentially denied having any medical or
mental health issues for which he might require any kind of assistance which is in direct contrast
to the totality of information gathered through the collateral resources.”

No. 2025AP1506
3
Lundbohm believed Kerry was incapacitated due to his impairments, that it was a
permanent condition, and that he was diagnosed with a serious and persistent mental illness—
specifically, an unspecified neurocognitive disorder, with an indication of a major depressive
disorder and an unspecified personality disorder with paranoid features. Lundbohm explained
Kerry’s incapacities interfered with his abilities to protect himself from exploitation and neglect
and to meet essential requirements for his health and safety. She opined that Kerry has a primary
need for residential care and custody and 24-hour supervision. Kerry’s current placement
offered 24-hour supervision with nutritional and medication management. Lundbohm
acknowledged that Kerry wanted to live independently; however, she explained Kerry
is a person who, again, shows a very poor understanding of his
various deficits and the limitations that come along with that. He
is dependent on staff currently at his residence for the more
complicated or complex tasks of daily living such as planning
meals, making meals, transportation, taking medications. In the
absence of that 24-hour support, I believe that he would be at risk
of harm to himself or others.
Kerry testified that he was aware of his limitations and believed he could live
independently. He testified he receives social security disability income and would use that for
monthly expenses. He would use his scooter for transportation, and he could cook for himself,
shower, dress, and groom himself independently and appropriately. Kerry did not believe he
suffered from paranoid thinking and instead explained that his sister had misallocated his father’s
estate funds.
The circuit court concluded the County established that Kerry continued to meet the
standards for protective placement and that his placement was the least restrictive consistent with
his needs. Kerry appeals.

No. 2025AP1506
4
On appeal, Kerry first asserts that the evidence introduced at the protective placement
hearing was insufficient to support the continuation of his guardianship. Kerry’s guardianship,
however, is not presently before this court. Unlike protective placements, which are reviewed
annually, WIS. STAT. § 55.18, a guardianship of an individual found to be incompetent generally
“continue[s] during the life of the ward, until terminated by the [circuit] court[.]” WIS. STAT.
§ 54.64(1). A ward may petition the court for review of incompetency or to have the
guardianship modified. Sec. 54.64(2). If the ward petitions to have the guardianship reviewed
and/or modified, the court appoints a GAL, provides the ward with adversary counsel, and holds
an evidentiary hearing, including a jury trial, if requested. Id.
Here, the circuit court placed Kerry under a guardianship in 2022. In the context of the
County’s petition to review Kerry’s protective placement, Kerry did not separately petition the
court to review and/or modify his guardianship under WIS. STAT. § 54.64. As such, the only
order the court entered related to Kerry’s continued protective placement. Because no petition to
review or modify the guardianship was filed, because guardianships continue for the life of the
ward under § 54.64, and because the final order that is under appeal relates only to Kerry’s
protective placement, Kerry’s current arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his guardianship are outside the scope of our review. We do not consider them.
Kerry next argues the evidence introduced at the protective placement hearing was
insufficient to support his continued protective placement. As stated above, protective
placements are subject to annual review pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 55.18. If an individual, such as
Kerry, contests the protective placement, a full due process hearing is required. Sec. 55.18(3)(d).
At an evidentiary hearing, in order to continue a protective placement, a circuit court must
conclude, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the individual continues to meet the

No. 2025AP1506
5
standards under WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1). WIS. STAT. §§ 55.18(3)(e), 55.10(4)(d).
Section 55.08(1), in turn, provides that an individual may be protectively placed if:
(a) The individual has a primary need for residential care and
custody.
(b) The individual … is an adult who has been determined to
be incompetent by a circuit court.
(c) As a result of developmental disability, degenerative brain
disorder, serious and persistent mental illness, or other like
incapacities, the individual 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. Serious harm may be
evidenced by overt acts or acts of omission.
(d) The individual has a disability that is permanent or likely to
be permanent.
Id. The court must also determine whether the protective placement is the least restrictive under
the circumstances. Sec. 55.18(3)(e).
“Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a protective placement
order presents a mixed question of fact and law.” Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, ¶15,
421 Wis. 2d 224, 37 N.W.3d 545. We “uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless they are
clearly erroneous, and we review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to meet the
requirements for continued protective placement.” Id.
The Record reflects that Lundbohm testified Kerry suffered from “significant and
permanent impairments” as well as diagnoses of an unspecified neurocognitive disorder, an
indication of a major depressive disorder, and an unspecified personality disorder with paranoid
features. He also exhibited signs of impairment on neurocognitive screenings. Kerry’s condition
was permanent and Lundbohm believed Kerry’s incapacities interfered with his abilities to
protect himself from exploitation and neglect and to meet essential requirements for his health

No. 2025AP1506
6
and safety. Kerry lacked insight into his current limitations and denied having any medical or
mental health issues. Although Lundbohm conceded that, with cues, Kerry was able to complete
simple tasks of daily living independently, “[h]e is fully dependent or reliant on others for the
more advanced functional tasks. … such as transportation, finances, problem solving related to
health, safety, taking care of medications, appointments, those kind[s] of things.”
The Record also reflects that Kerry currently lives in a facility that provides 24-hour
supervision with both nutritional and medication management. Lundbohm believed that without
24-hour supervision, Kerry “would be at risk of harm to himself or others.” She elaborated that
“[g]iven the level of his different deficits, [and] his poor understanding of those[,]” 24-hour
supervision would keep him “safe and make sure that his various day-to-day needs are met.”
Based on Lundbohm’s expert testimony and her examining report, we conclude the Record
sufficiently establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Kerry continues to satisfy the
requirements of WIS. STAT. § 55.08(1) and his current placement is the least restrictive.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals