## Facts

- Gerhardt T. was 76 years old, suffered from dementia, and lived on his farm with his second wife, Susan L., whom he had known for about 20 years before marrying.
- Less than two years after the marriage, county workers found Gerhardt alone, confused, and living in extreme filth while Susan was away on a cruise.
- The house contained 29 cats and was covered in garbage and animal waste.
- The county removed Gerhardt from the home and petitioned the circuit court to appoint a guardian.
- The circuit court found Gerhardt incompetent and found Susan was motivated by financial gain and had been depleting Gerhardt’s assets.
- The court appointed a third party as guardian of Gerhardt’s estate and appointed Gerhardt’s nephew, Carl T., as guardian of Gerhardt’s person.
- Gerhardt was initially placed in Carl’s home; later, the court approved placement in a community-based residential facility (CBRF).
- While in the CBRF, Gerhardt repeatedly told caregivers he wanted to return to his farm home.
- Susan took remedial steps: she sought counseling, completed caregiving education, reduced the number of animals, cleaned the home, and installed devices to assist with Gerhardt’s care.
- Susan moved the court to return Gerhardt to the home, arguing it would be less restrictive than the CBRF and that Gerhardt could be safely cared for there.
- Carl opposed the motion, citing concerns that Susan would block family from visiting and monitoring Gerhardt and that Gerhardt would not be adequately protected.
- Evidence at the placement hearing included that Gerhardt was relatively high functioning, could likely be safe at home with 24-hour supervision, and that dementia patients often do better in familiar surroundings.
- The circuit court concluded a return home was feasible if strict conditions were imposed and ordered Gerhardt’s return subject to requirements including: continuous supervision by Susan/family/caregiver, at least weekly family visits, sanitary conditions, limits on animals, and unannounced inspections.
- Carl appealed from the order returning Gerhardt home, arguing the conditions did not adequately protect Gerhardt.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering Gerhardt’s return to his home, subject to conditions, as the least restrictive protective placement consistent with his needs and safety.
2. Whether the circuit court’s conditional home-placement order failed to sufficiently protect Gerhardt in light of the prior neglect and concerns about Susan’s conduct.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order.
- The court held the placement decision was discretionary and was supported by evidence that Gerhardt could be safe at home with 24-hour supervision and monitoring.
- The court accepted the circuit court’s use of detailed conditions (family access, sanitation and animal limits, and unannounced inspections) to address safety risks while allowing a less restrictive setting than a facility.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin protective placement must be in the least restrictive environment consistent with the ward’s needs and safety.
- Selection of a protective placement is reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion; the appellate court asks whether the circuit court applied the proper legal standard to facts supported by the record.
- Circuit-court factual findings are upheld unless clearly erroneous; the appellate court does not reweigh competing evidence where the record supports the findings.
- A circuit court may manage risk through enforceable placement conditions (such as continuous supervision, required family visitation, and inspection authority) when determining a least-restrictive placement.
- Separating control of the ward’s person and the ward’s estate through different guardians can reduce financial-risk concerns when a home placement is otherwise feasible.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals affirmed because the record supported the circuit court’s determination that Gerhardt could be safely cared for at home with continuous supervision and structured oversight, making the conditional return to his farm home the least restrictive placement consistent with his needs.


In the Matter of the Guardianship of Gerhardt T., 830 N.W.2d 723 (2013)