Douglas County v. N. J. M.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
February 17, 2026
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2025AP484 Cir. Ct. No. 2024GN43

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

IN THE MATTER OF N. J. M.:

DOUGLAS COUNTY,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

N. J. M.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Douglas County:
KELLY J. THIMM, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz, and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).
No. 2025AP484

¶1 PER CURIAM. Nancy1 appeals orders granting Douglas County’s
petitions for guardianship of her person and her estate and for her protective
placement. Nancy argues that the County failed to establish personal jurisdiction,
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 53.23 (2023-24),2 to appoint a guardian and order
protective placement. For the following reasons, we reject Nancy’s argument and
affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On October 1, 2024, the County petitioned for temporary
guardianship of Nancy’s person and estate due to her incompetency and for her
protective placement based on reports from the Douglas County Health and
Human Services Department (“DHHS”) and the Superior Police Department,
which described Nancy as “a vulnerable adult who is homeless in the community.”
Both petitions alleged that Nancy resided in Douglas County. According to the
County, Nancy had been living in a tent on Barker’s Island with her mother, Katie,
and her father, Chad, since July 2024, and law enforcement had concerns that
Nancy was being sexually abused by Chad due to his criminal history and
statements that he made to officers.

¶3 The County also alleged that on September 26, 2024, Nancy and
Katie sought services from the DHHS. A DHHS worker reported that Nancy was
unable to answer any questions or engage in conversation and that Nancy appeared
extremely dirty, had deeply matted hair, was malodorous, and scratched several

1
For ease of reading, we refer to the appellant in this confidential matter, and her
parents, using pseudonyms, rather than initials.
2
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

2
No. 2025AP484

areas of her body throughout the meeting. Katie reported that Nancy was autistic,
that she was Nancy’s primary caretaker, that Nancy had been sexually assaulted
several times, and that Nancy was incontinent at night. Although the DHHS
recommended a medical evaluation for Nancy, Katie refused to allow a physician
to see Nancy.

¶4 The County further alleged that on September 30, 2024, Nancy again
appeared extremely dirty, malodorous, and “unable to track or engage in any form
of communication.” On that same day, government officials transported her to a
hospital for evaluation. According to the County, medical staff determined Nancy
was unable to “fully express her needs, unable to weigh out option[s] or consider
consequences, or make informed choices,” and Nancy was unable to “make safe
decision[s] for herself and [her] health and well-being.” Because of Nancy’s
disability “and the alleged abuse, neglect and exploitation,” the County alleged
that the appointment of a temporary guardian of the person and estate was
necessary to protect Nancy from further harm. It also requested protective
placement of Nancy.

¶5 On October 2, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing on the petitions.
At that hearing, the County presented testimony from Bria Hendrickson-Schurke,
an emergency medicine physician assistant; Megan Jones, a coordinated response
specialist with the Superior Police Department; and Kira Johnson, an adult
services worker with the DHHS who was assigned to Nancy’s case. All testified
about their interactions with Nancy, Katie and Chad in August and September
2024. For each interaction they had with Nancy, they described her as:
disheveled, confused, dirty and odorous, agitated, itching, and with matted hair.

3
No. 2025AP484

¶6 Based on their observations of and interactions with Nancy, each
witness believed Nancy was a vulnerable adult who was unable to communicate
her needs and unable to make safe decisions for herself. In particular,
Hendrickson-Schurke testified that Nancy was “very vulnerable,” that she had an
“obvious delay in communication and delayed ability to process what is being said
to her in addition to her ability to respond,” and that she was unable to care for
herself. Jones testified that Nancy was at a high risk of exploitation because of
“her vulnerability, living without a home, and having possible individuals with her
that may be at risk for causing sexual abuse due to their own mental health and
substance use.” And Johnson testified that Nancy seemed unable “to
communicate her needs or anything of that sort,” that she was “not connected with
any local services when typically an individual like herself would be,” and that her
disabilities impeded Nancy’s ability to care for herself.

¶7 Following the hearing, the circuit court ordered a temporary
guardianship of Nancy’s person but not of her estate, and a temporary protective
placement pending the hearing for a permanent protective placement.

¶8 On October 16, 2024, the County filed a petition for permanent
guardianship of Nancy’s person and estate. On October 28, 2024, Nancy, through
counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the circuit court
lacked personal jurisdiction to hear the petition pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 53.23.
Nancy alleged that an “Emergency Petition for Appointment of Temporary
Guardian and Permanent Guardian for Adult” had been filed in Iowa on October
23, 2024. Nancy also alleged that she resided at 316 Lucas Avenue, Eagle Grove,
Iowa; that a bank statement confirmed that address; and that the bank statement
showed Nancy had “lived there since at least March 31, 2023.” Nancy’s motion to

4
No. 2025AP484

dismiss included as attachments the alleged Iowa petition and a photo of the
address portion of a bank statement.

¶9 In response, the County stated that Nancy had been present in
Wisconsin during the summer of 2023 and since July 2024, but the County
admitted that it did not know where Nancy had been physically present between
September 2023 and July 2024 and that “therefore Wisconsin cannot be proven to
be [Nancy’s] home state.” The County argued, however, that Nancy had a
significant connection to Wisconsin that established jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.
STAT. § 53.23(2)(a). The County further argued that the Iowa attorney who
drafted the Iowa petition “was not made aware of the temporary [g]uardianship in
Douglas County,” that the Iowa petition “fails to mention the Douglas County
orders,” and that the Iowa petition “appears to have been orchestrated as a
collateral attack on this Court’s jurisdiction.”

¶10 On October 29, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing to first address
Nancy’s motion to dismiss and then the permanent guardianship and protective
placement petitions. At the start of the hearing, the court asked Nancy’s counsel
whether he wanted to add anything to the motion to dismiss. Counsel responded
that he sought to take testimony to bolster the motion’s factual basis.3 Counsel
called Katie to testify in support of Nancy’s motion, while Johnson testified for the
County.

3
Nancy claims that the circuit court shifted the burden to her to prove jurisdiction by
asking her counsel this question. However, it is clear that the court simply asked whether Nancy
wanted to present additional evidence in support of her motion, which Nancy did. As noted
below, the fact that the court found that evidence not credible does not mean that it shifted the
burden to Nancy or that the court did not hold the County to its burden, as Nancy contends.

5
No. 2025AP484

¶11 Katie testified that Nancy had always resided with her and that they
had been living at 316 South Lucas Avenue, Eagle Grove, Iowa, for four years.
Katie also testified that her driver’s license, which was admitted into evidence,
was an Iowa license issued in 2023. The parties stipulated that Nancy and Katie
had an Iowa bank account and that the bank statement attached to Nancy’s motion
had an Iowa address on it. Katie further testified that she had lived in Iowa for 46
years and that Nancy had lived there for 18 years.

¶12 Regarding family contacts, Katie testified that Nancy’s two brothers,
Nancy’s nephew, and Nancy’s sister-in-law resided in Iowa. Katie added that
Chad was from Iowa but that he was not currently in Iowa because he “deals with
paranoid schizophrenia and with all that has gone on, he is in St. Cloud at Place of
Hope.” Katie also testified that Nancy had a doctor in Iowa who had been treating
Nancy since she was four years old.

¶13 As to Nancy’s whereabouts, Katie testified that she and Nancy were
in Iowa in 2023. She stated that she and Nancy came to Wisconsin on August 5,
2024, to check on Chad, who had been in Wisconsin since July 2024. Katie
explained that if “things were not going well,” she and Nancy would return to
Iowa, but that “things were going very well” so they stayed longer. She added that
she had remained in Wisconsin because of Nancy’s guardianship proceedings.

¶14 Katie also testified that she had started a guardianship proceeding in
Iowa in July 2024, before Nancy turned 18, and that her “attorney did not finish it.
He was supposed to finish it by August 15th and he did not.” Katie testified that,
following the start of guardianship proceedings in Wisconsin, her attorney
petitioned for emergency guardianship in Iowa, and the judge in that case was
“just waiting for the official background check to come through.”

6
No. 2025AP484

¶15 On cross-examination, Katie testified further about Nancy’s
whereabouts between 2023 and 2024. Katie stated that she, Chad and Nancy were
in Superior, Wisconsin, in May 2023, and that she had contact with law
enforcement twice during that time. Katie admitted telling law enforcement that
she, Chad and Nancy had “left [their] lives in Iowa to be” near a pastor in Proctor,
Minnesota. Katie then clarified that she “misspoke” about what she told law
enforcement, that she was not planning to stay in Wisconsin, but that she and her
family had come to visit the pastor. Katie then stated that she remained in
Wisconsin from May 2023 until the middle of June 2023.

¶16 Katie further testified that she went to a homeless shelter in Ashland,
Wisconsin, around September 2024 and that she worked briefly at the Bad River
Casino at that time. Katie also recalled speaking to law enforcement in her tent on
Barker’s Island, but she did not recall stating that she wanted to stay in the area
long term. She also testified that she spoke with law enforcement about six to ten
times between 2023 and 2024 and that she would be surprised if all of the law
enforcement reports listed her address as homeless because she provided her Iowa
address. Upon further cross-examination, Katie testified that Chad had never lived
at her current home in Iowa, that her son paid the rent for the Iowa home, that she
had paid the rent in the past, and that rent was paid through November 2024.
Katie added that she was self-employed and worked for Family Homestead Oils.

¶17 In response to the circuit court’s question regarding why she lived at
a homeless shelter in Ashland and in a tent on Barker’s Island when she had a
home in Iowa, Katie responded that she was trying to reunite her family and that
she and her family were camping on Barker’s Island and not living in a tent. The
court also asked Katie why she needed another job at the casino when she worked
for Family Homestead Oils. Katie responded that she could “do the Homestead

7
No. 2025AP484

Oil[s] job anywhere” and that she “chose to get a job” at the casino because she,
Chad and Nancy “were going to possibly stay at that resort longer and [the job]
gave a discount at that place.” When the court asked where Katie stayed when she
was in Wisconsin, she responded that she stayed at the Ruth House.4 The court
further asked Katie why she did not rent an apartment or stay at a hotel while she
was in Wisconsin. She responded that she was “not ready to put down roots” in
Wisconsin because her family was in Iowa and that she and Chad had a
“contracting business” but they had not decided in which area to do it.

¶18 On redirect examination, Katie testified that she and Nancy were in
Wisconsin in February 2023 to reunite with Chad, but they returned to Iowa in
March and did not return to Wisconsin until August 2024. On
recross-examination, Katie admitted that she and Nancy were screened for
long-term public services in Douglas County. She also testified that Nancy
received therapy services and medications in Iowa. Katie further stated that she
informed the Iowa attorney about the guardianship proceeding in Wisconsin and
that she would be surprised that the attorney said he did not know about the
Wisconsin proceedings.

¶19 Johnson testified that she had prior contacts with Nancy and Katie,
and that she had reviewed reports indicating that Nancy and Katie were in
Superior in 2023. She stated that Katie had provided multiple reasons for why she
and Nancy were in Douglas County, including “camping for retirement,”
“vacation,” “looking for [Nancy’s father] in the area,” and “moving into the

4
At the hearing on the temporary petitions, Jones described the Ruth House as a local
organization that provided services, such as food, and sometimes allowed people to stay
overnight.

8
No. 2025AP484

apartments when it got cold out.” Johnson also testified that she had only heard of
Katie having a job at the casino and that she was unaware of the pastor in Proctor
whom Katie mentioned.

¶20 Johnson also testified that, based on her investigation of the case and
other statements she had heard, she believed Nancy and her family intended to
stay in Douglas County because they were looking for services from the DHHS,
the Aging and Disability Resource Center (“ADRC”), and other local agencies in
September 2024. Johnson added that Nancy and her family did not contact the
DHHS at any point prior to September 2024. Johnson also stated that she asked
Katie where she and Nancy resided when they sought DHHS services, and Katie
stated they resided at Barker’s Island. She added that Katie never mentioned an
Iowa address or the Ruth House.

¶21 Following Katie’s and Johnson’s testimony, the circuit court
concluded that Nancy did not have a “home state” because neither Wisconsin nor
Iowa met the definition in WIS. STAT. § 53.02(7). The court also found Katie was
not credible, stating that “[s]ome of her discussions, you know, she talks about
working places. She adds more places she’s working. She talks about paying rent
and then not paying rent. I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe—I think it’s a
manufacturing for jurisdiction.” The court explained that having a driver’s license
and address in Iowa did not mean that was where Katie and Nancy had been
living, commenting, “Why would you live in a tent on Barker’s Island when you
have a home in Iowa? It just defies all logic.” The court further found that the
only credible information Katie provided was that she and Nancy had been in
Wisconsin since August 5, 2024, because the evidence supported that information.

9
No. 2025AP484

¶22 The circuit court also concluded that Wisconsin was a
“significant-connection state,” as provided in WIS. STAT. § 53.21, and, because
Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 53.23(2)(a). Because the court concluded it had jurisdiction, it denied Nancy’s
motion to dismiss, proceeded to address the permanent guardianship and
protective placement petitions, and ultimately entered orders granting those
petitions. Nancy appeals. Additional facts will be provided below as necessary.

DISCUSSION

¶23 On appeal, Nancy argues that the County failed to establish that the
circuit court had personal jurisdiction over her to order a guardianship and
protective placement. “In order for a Wisconsin court to have jurisdiction over a
person, there must be a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction.”5 Bushelman v.
Bushelman, 2001 WI App 124, ¶7, 246 Wis. 2d 317, 629 N.W.2d 795. “The
burden is on the party filing the action”—here, the County—“to establish personal
jurisdiction.” See id. On appeal, we will not set aside the circuit court’s findings
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we independently review whether
those facts meet the statutory requirements for personal jurisdiction. Id., ¶17.

¶24 This appeal also involves statutory interpretation, which is a
question of law that we review de novo. Robin K. v. Lamanda M., 2006 WI 68,
¶13, 291 Wis. 2d 333, 718 N.W.2d 38. “The purpose of statutory interpretation is
to give the statute its full, proper, and intended effect.” Id. When reviewing a

5
In addition, the application of the statute to the individual must comport with the
requirements of due process. Bushelman v. Bushelman, 2001 WI App 124, ¶7, 246 Wis. 2d 317,
629 N.W.2d 795. Nancy does not raise any argument regarding due process in this case, so we do
not address that issue further.

10
No. 2025AP484

statute, we begin with its language and give that language its “common, ordinary,
and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases
are given their technical or special definitional meaning.” See State ex rel. Kalal
v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d
110. We also interpret 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 reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”
Id., ¶46.

¶25 WISCONSIN STAT. ch. 53 applies to jurisdiction determinations for
purposes of adult guardianship and protective placement proceedings. See WIS.
STAT. § 53.01. There are three ways in which a Wisconsin court has personal
jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the person or issue an order appointing a
guardian of the estate. WIS. STAT. § 53.23(1)-(3). Relevant here, a court has
personal jurisdiction if,

[o]n the date the petition is filed, this state is a
significant-connection state and any of the following is
satisfied:

(a) The respondent does not have a home state or
a court of the respondent’s home state has declined
to exercise jurisdiction because this state is a more
appropriate forum.

Sec. 53.23(2)(a).6 In other words, to establish personal jurisdiction, the County
had to show that on the date the petitions were filed, Wisconsin was a
“significant-connection” state, and either Nancy did not have a “home state” or a

6
As used in WIS. STAT. ch. 53, a “[r]espondent” is “an adult for whom an order
appointing a guardian of the estate or the appointment of a guardian of the person is sought.”
WIS. STAT. § 53.02(14).

11
No. 2025AP484

court of Nancy’s home state had declined to exercise jurisdiction because
Wisconsin was a more appropriate forum.

¶26 The “home state” is “the state in which the respondent was
physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for at least 6
consecutive months immediately before the filing of” a petition; “or if none, the
state in which the respondent was physically present, including any period of
temporary absence, for at least 6 consecutive months ending within the 6 months
prior to the filing of the petition.” WIS. STAT. § 53.02(7).

¶27 A “[s]ignificant-connection state” is “a state, other than the home
state, with which a respondent has a significant connection other than mere
physical presence considering the factors in [WIS. STAT. §] 53.21.” WIS. STAT.
§ 53.02(16). The five factors that a court must consider when determining
whether a respondent has a significant connection with a state are:

(1) The location of and strength of connection to the
respondent’s family, other significant social connections,
and service providers.

(2) The location of other persons required to be notified of
the guardianship of the person proceeding or proceeding to
appoint a guardian of the estate and the location of
substantial evidence relating to the respondent.

(3) The length of time the respondent at any time was
physically present in the state, past or current status as a
resident, and the duration of any absence.

(4) The location of the resident’s property.

(5) The extent to which the respondent has ties to the state,
such as voting registration, state or local tax return filing,
vehicle registration, driver’s license, work, social
relationship, and receipt of services.

Sec. 53.21(1)-(5).

12
No. 2025AP484

¶28 Nancy argues that the County failed to show that Wisconsin was a
significant-connection state because the County presented evidence of Katie’s
connection to Wisconsin, rather than Nancy’s connection, and the evidence it
presented of Katie’s connection was weak. Nancy further contends that the only
finding the circuit court made regarding the significant-connection factors was that
Katie was not credible and that the court implicitly concluded Wisconsin was a
significant-connection state without discussing the statutory factors. Nancy does
not dispute the court’s determination that Wisconsin was not her home state, but
she argues that the County failed to show that she did not have a home state and
that the evidence instead showed that Iowa was her home state.

¶29 Although the circuit court did not address each
significant-connection factor in WIS. STAT. § 53.21, we conclude that the evidence
presented by the County at the hearings on both the temporary and permanent
petitions for guardianship and protective placement supports the court’s
conclusion that Wisconsin was a significant-connection state at the time the
petitions were filed on October 1 and 16, 2024. We further conclude that the court
correctly determined, based on the evidence presented, that neither Wisconsin nor
Iowa was Nancy’s home state as defined in WIS. STAT. § 53.02(7).

¶30 At the hearing on the temporary guardianship and protective
placement petitions, Jones testified that she had between eight and ten interactions
with Nancy. Specifically, she first met Nancy in August 2024, when Nancy was
running down a street, in and out of traffic, and officers led her into the police
department. Jones testified that she met Nancy at the door to the department after
officers opened it and Nancy ran inside. Jones stated that it took her ten minutes
to learn Nancy’s name and that Chad arrived thereafter. She further stated that
Katie was in her vehicle in the building’s parking lot at the time.

13
No. 2025AP484

¶31 Jones testified that her next interaction with Nancy occurred the
following week, when the police department received a call about individuals
camping in the Superior Municipal Forest. Jones stated that she and other officers
offered resources to Nancy and her parents, who were the reported campers. She
also noted that Nancy and her parents had used those resources because they had
gone to the Ruth House for meals and they were connected to a church for food,
showering and clothing. According to Jones, Nancy and her family left the
municipal forest and went to Ashland, but they returned after September 20, 2024,
when Jones had her next interaction with Nancy.

¶32 Jones testified that on that occasion the police department received a
call about individuals camping on Barker’s Island. Jones spoke with Katie, who
informed Jones that she, Chad and Nancy had been sexually assaulted at a shelter
in Ashland. When Jones offered to set up services, in the form of either law
enforcement services or medical services for Nancy, Katie refused. A few days
later, Jones again made contact with Nancy and her family at a gas station. Jones
testified that as she attempted to speak with Nancy, she was running onto a busy
road and ended up running into the gas station car wash.

¶33 Jones also testified that her final interaction with Nancy occurred on
September 30, 2024, when she and other officers attempted to take Nancy to a
hospital. At one point, Jones testified, Katie had a “defensive stance” against
officers, told Nancy to run, and Nancy ran out of Katie’s vehicle and into the Ruth
House.

¶34 Next, Johnson testified about two interactions that she had with
Nancy. She stated that she first met Nancy when Nancy and her parents were
speaking to one of Johnson’s colleagues. Johnson explained that she was in her

14
No. 2025AP484

office when she heard Nancy bang on her door, so Johnson left her office and
spoke with Nancy, who asked Johnson’s name multiple times and seemed fixated
on Johnson’s name tag.

¶35 Johnson also testified that she was present when officers attempted
to take Nancy to the hospital on September 30, 2024. Johnson stated that when
she arrived, officers were talking to Katie and trying to talk to Nancy, but that
Katie was standing in front of her vehicle and blocking access to Nancy. Johnson
further stated that when she was able to speak to Nancy, Nancy “did not seem to
understand what [Johnson] was explaining to her in that she was going to be
transported to the hospital.” Johnson was also concerned for Nancy’s safety
because Katie was telling Nancy to run, that Nancy did so, and that Nancy became
agitated when officers chased her down the roads.

¶36 Finally, Hendrickson-Schurke testified that she initially examined
Nancy for 15 minutes upon her arrival at the hospital on September 30, 2024. She
testified that Katie arrived with Nancy, that Katie initially spoke for Nancy, but
nursing staff and security officers ultimately removed Katie from the exam room
because she was impeding Hendrickson-Schurke from conducting a safe and
secure assessment of Nancy. Hendrickson-Schurke also testified that she was
unable to access Nancy’s prior medical records and that she was unable to get
Nancy’s prior medical history from Katie.

¶37 The above evidence presented by the County at the temporary
guardianship and protective placement hearing, together with the evidence
presented at the permanent guardianship and protective placement hearing,
supports the circuit court’s conclusion that Wisconsin was a significant-connection
state in the months leading up to the filing of the guardianship and protective

15
No. 2025AP484

placement petitions. First, the County provided evidence relating to the location
of, and Nancy’s connection to, her family and service providers. See WIS. STAT.
§ 53.21(1). Jones and Johnson testified about Nancy’s use of services in
Wisconsin, including the Ruth House, the DHHS, and a homeless shelter in
Ashland.

¶38 Also evident from the testimony was Nancy’s connection to her
parents, both of whom were in Wisconsin and were highly involved with Nancy.
Every time these witnesses attempted to interact with Nancy, she was either with
Katie, Chad or both. Nancy’s close connection to Katie is also evident, given her
attempts to speak or intervene on Nancy’s behalf. Although the circuit court
considered Katie’s testimony regarding Nancy’s familial connections in Iowa, the
County clearly showed that Nancy had a strong connection to her parents, both of
whom were then in Wisconsin and had been for a fair amount of time. Thus, the
evidence presented by the County regarding Nancy’s connections to family and
service providers in Wisconsin at the time the petitions were filed supported the
court’s conclusion that Wisconsin was a significant-connection state.

¶39 Second, the County presented evidence of the location of persons
required to be notified of Nancy’s guardianship proceedings and the location of
substantial evidence relating to Nancy at the time the petition was filed. See WIS.
STAT. § 53.21(2). Both sets of evidence were strongly tied to Wisconsin. Those
persons entitled to notice for guardianship proceedings include “[a]ny presumptive
adult heirs, as specified in [WIS. STAT. §] 851.09,” of the respondent.7 WIS. STAT.

7
An “[h]eir” is “any person … who is entitled under the statutes of intestate succession
to an interest in property of a decedent.” WIS. STAT. § 851.09. This definition includes a parent.
See WIS. STAT. § 852.01(1)(c).

16
No. 2025AP484

§ 54.38(2)(b)3. Here, those people included Katie and Chad, who were both with
Nancy during interactions with local law enforcement and the DHHS. The
guardianship and protective placement petitions noted Katie as an interested party
entitled to notice, and she appeared at all hearings.8

¶40 Furthermore, the County’s evidence regarding the need for a
guardianship was located in Wisconsin. Jones and Johnson testified about
Nancy’s condition during their multiple interactions with Nancy and her family,
all of which occurred in Wisconsin. Although Nancy’s medical evaluation
occurred in Duluth, Minnesota, the examining psychologist’s October 1, 2024
report was provided to the circuit court at the temporary guardianship hearing
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 54.50(3)(c), and the examining psychologist testified
about the report at the permanent guardianship hearing. While Katie testified that
Nancy had a treating doctor in Iowa, received therapy services in Iowa, and
received medications in Iowa, the evidence relating to Nancy’s need for a
guardianship at the time the petitions were filed was mostly in Wisconsin. Thus,
the County’s evidence regarding the location of persons requiring notice and the
location of substantial evidence relating to Nancy’s need for a guardianship
supported the court’s conclusion that Wisconsin was a significant-connection
state.

¶41 Third, the County presented evidence regarding the length of time
that Nancy was physically present in Wisconsin. See WIS. STAT. § 53.21(3). The
circuit court considered Katie’s testimony that she and Nancy visited Wisconsin

8
Although Chad was also entitled to notice, both Nancy and the County acknowledge
that Chad was reported missing at the time the petition was filed.

17
No. 2025AP484

sporadically in 2023 and 2024, but it did not find that testimony credible. Instead,
it found that the evidence established that Nancy had been in Wisconsin
continuously since August 5, 2024. That finding is supported by Jones’ and
Johnson’s testimony regarding their interactions with Nancy and her family, all of
which occurred in August and September 2024. As a result, Nancy had been
physically present in Wisconsin for about two months at the time the County filed
its guardianship and protective placement petitions.

¶42 Fourth, there was limited evidence presented regarding the location
of Nancy’s property that would be subject to a guardianship. See WIS. STAT.
§ 53.21(4). The parties stipulated that Nancy and Katie had an Iowa bank account,
but there was no additional evidence regarding assets in that bank account. The
County admits that “the only evidence that [Nancy] owned any property would
have been in the form of personal property held by her at the time she was placed
under temporary protective placement.” However, the County did not present
evidence of any property that Nancy held at that time. Therefore, this fourth factor
regarding the location of Nancy’s property does not support a conclusion that
Wisconsin is a significant-connection state.

¶43 Finally, the County presented evidence of Nancy’s ties to Wisconsin,
mostly in the form of “receipt of services.” See WIS. STAT. § 53.21(5). Given
Nancy’s cognitive limitations, it was reasonable for the circuit court to infer that
Nancy did not have a driver’s license, tax return filings, voting registration, or
vehicle registration, either in Wisconsin or any other state. As noted above, Nancy
had engaged with the Superior Police Department, the Ruth House, another
unnamed shelter in Ashland, the ADRC, and the DHHS at the time the petition
was filed. We agree with the County that Nancy’s limited receipt of services “was
not because [Nancy] did not require more or that a state other than Wisconsin was

18
No. 2025AP484

providing them,” but because Nancy “was a vulnerable adult who had no family,
social [connections] or means of getting help or services from anyone other than
her mother” and because Nancy’s “isolation and dependency on her family for
care created barriers to her receiving services that would ensure her safety and
provide necessary medical care and assistance for her daily living activities.”
Thus, the County’s evidence regarding Nancy’s ties to Wisconsin in the form of
receipt of services supports the circuit court’s conclusion that Wisconsin was a
significant-connection state.

¶44 Taken together, the County’s evidence established that Nancy had a
significant connection with Wisconsin other than her mere physical presence
there. See WIS. STAT. § 53.02(16). Thus, the County’s evidence supported the
circuit court’s conclusion that Wisconsin was a significant-connection state at the
time the guardianship and protective placement petitions were filed.

¶45 The County also presented evidence supporting the circuit court’s
conclusion that Nancy did not have a home state as defined in WIS. STAT.
§ 53.02(7). Nancy contends that the evidence established that Iowa was, in fact,
her home state because the reasonable inference from Katie’s testimony was that
Nancy was in Iowa for the six months prior to August 5, 2024, and the County
presented no evidence that Nancy was anywhere but Iowa between June 2023 and
August 2024. As the County notes, however, its evidence showed that Nancy and
Katie were “transient and as such, pinning down [Nancy’s] physical presence in a
particular location [was] impossible.”

¶46 We agree with the County that, based on the evidence presented
regarding Nancy’s whereabouts prior to August 5, 2024, and the circuit court’s
finding that Katie’s testimony was not credible, it was difficult to establish

19
No. 2025AP484

Nancy’s physical presence at a particular location for the 6 to 12 months prior to
the filing of the petitions. We disagree with Nancy, however, that such a difficulty
opposes Wisconsin jurisdiction in this proceeding.

¶47 The circuit court agreed with the County that Nancy was not
physically present in Iowa for at least six consecutive months before the petition
was filed, given the evidence that Nancy and Katie had been in Wisconsin since at
least August 2024. The court acknowledged the Iowa address on Katie’s driver’s
license, but it did not believe having such a license meant that Iowa was where she
and Nancy had been living. The court reasonably questioned why Nancy and
Katie would live in a tent on Barker’s Island when they had a home in Iowa.
Again, the court found Katie not credible in her testimony pertaining to the Iowa
residence, stating that it did not “believe where she’s been spending her time.”
Given the evidence of Nancy’s transient nature and Katie’s lack of credibility, the
court could not reasonably infer that Nancy was only in Iowa prior to April
2024—i.e., for at least six consecutive months ending within the six months prior
to the filing of the petition. Thus, it was reasonable for the court to conclude that
Iowa was not Nancy’s home state.

¶48 Because Wisconsin was a significant-connection state at the time the
guardianship and protective placement petitions were filed and because Nancy did
not have a home state at that time, jurisdiction was established under WIS. STAT.
§ 53.23(2)(a). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by concluding it had
personal jurisdiction to order guardianship and protective placement pursuant to
§ 53.23.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

20
No. 2025AP484

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

21