Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether Wisconsin's residency requirement for guardianship and protective-placement petitions unconstitutionally burdened an incapacitated person's right to interstate travel. The court vacated the court of appeals' decision and remanded for application of comity-based standards governing the transfer of interstate guardianships, emphasizing communication and cooperation between courts.
Holdings
- Wisconsin courts confronted with interstate guardianship transfers must apply standards grounded in comity, communication, notice, cooperation, transfer by the originating court, acceptance by the receiving court, and subsequent review.
- The proposed Wisconsin receiving court should require a petition to the original court for transfer, a petition in Wisconsin for receipt and acceptance, proper notice to the ward and interested persons, an opportunity for objections and a hearing, and recognition of the foreign guardianship if the transfer is approved.
- If the Illinois court approves the transfer and the Wisconsin court accepts it after the required notice and transfer process, Wisconsin should give full faith and credit to the terms and powers of the Illinois guardianship order, subject to necessary administrative changes under Wisconsin law.
- The statute's county-of-residence requirement is constitutional as applied to Jane because it is a bona fide residency requirement rationally related to preserving public resources for Wisconsin residents.
Questions Presented
- What procedures should Wisconsin courts apply when an existing guardianship from another state is sought to be transferred to Wisconsin?
- Whether principles of interstate comity require Wisconsin courts to coordinate with the original Illinois court and recognize a properly transferred guardianship.
- Whether Wis. Stat. § 55.06(3)(c), as applied to Jane, unconstitutionally burdens the right to interstate travel.
- Whether the Wisconsin court could proceed on a new protective-placement petition when Jane was not a Wisconsin resident.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (20)
- Teague v. Bad River Chippewa Indians, 2003 WI 118, 265 Wis. 2d 64, 665 N.W.2d 899(followed)
- Mack v. Mack, 618 A.2d 744 (Md. 1993)(discussed)
- In re Guardianship of Margaret Enos, 670 N.E.2d 967 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)(discussed)
- In re Guardianship of Ralph DeCaigny, No. C3-93-1269, 1994 Minn. App. LEXIS 126 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1994)(discussed)
- Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc. v. Leean, 122 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 1997)(distinguished)
- State v. Holmes, 106 Wis. 2d 31, 315 N.W.2d 703 (1982)(discussed)
- State v. Vanmanivong, 2005 WI 41, 261 Wis. 2d 202, 661 N.W.2d 76(followed)
- County of Kenosha v. C&S Management, Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999)(followed)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110(followed)
- Seider v. O'Connell, 2000 WI 76, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…