Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 53 — UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP JURISDICTION
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 53.21 (2026)

Significant-connection factors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
53.2153.21 Significant-connection factors. In determining under ss. 53.23 and 53.31 whether a respondent has a significant connection with a particular state, the court shall consider all of the following:
53.21(1)(1) The location of and strength of connection to the respondent’s family, other significant social connections, and service providers.
53.21(2)(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.
53.21(3)(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.
53.21(4)(4) The location of the resident’s property.
53.21(5)(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.
Down
Up
53.21 HistoryHistory: 2017 a. 187.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2026–2026 · leading case: Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 7× “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Wis. Stat. § 53.21(1): 1 case
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Wis. Stat. § 53.21(2): 1 case
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Wis. Stat. § 53.21(3): 1 case
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Wis. Stat. § 53.21(4): 1 case
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Wis. Stat. § 53.21(5): 1 case
Douglas Cnty. v. N. J. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 53.21, and, because Nancy did not have a home state, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to WIS.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.