Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 54.42 (2026)
Rights of proposed ward or ward
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
54.42(1)(a)2.2. The guardian ad litem or another person states to the court that the proposed ward or ward is opposed to the guardianship petition.
54.42(1)(a)3.3. The court determines that the interests of justice require counsel for the proposed ward or ward.
54.42(1)(b)(b) Any attorney obtained under par. (a) or appointed under par. (c) shall be an advocate for the expressed wishes of the proposed ward or ward.
54.42(1)(c)(c) If par. (a) 1., 2., or 3. applies but the proposed ward or ward is unable to obtain legal counsel, the court shall appoint legal counsel. If the proposed ward or ward is represented by counsel appointed under s. 977.08 in a proceeding under a petition for protective placement brought under s. 55.075, the court shall order the counsel appointed under s. 977.08 to represent the proposed ward or ward.
54.42(2)(2) Right to jury trial. The proposed ward or ward has the right to a trial by a jury if demanded by the proposed ward or ward, his or her attorney, or the guardian ad litem, except that the right is waived unless demanded at least 48 hours before the time set for the hearing. The number of jurors for such a trial is determined under s. 756.06 (2) (b). The proposed ward or ward, his or her attorney, or the guardian ad litem each has the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, including any physician or licensed psychologist who reports to the court concerning the proposed ward.
54.42(3)(3) Right to independent examination. If requested by the proposed ward, ward, or anyone on the proposed ward’s or ward’s behalf, the proposed ward or ward has the right at his or her own expense, or if indigent at the expense of the county where the petition is heard on the merits, to secure an independent medical or psychological examination relevant to the issue involved in any hearing under this chapter, and to present a report of this independent evaluation or the evaluator’s personal testimony as evidence at the hearing.
54.42(4)(4) Right to payment of expenses in contesting proceedings. If a guardian is appointed, the court shall, if the court determines it reasonable, allow payment from the ward’s income or assets of expenses incurred by the ward in contesting the appointment. These expenses are payable before other attorney or guardian ad litem fees.
54.42(5)(5) Right to be present at hearing. The proposed ward or ward has the right to be present at any hearing regarding the guardianship.
54.42(6)(6) Right to hearing in accessible location. The proposed ward or ward has the right to have any hearing regarding the guardianship conducted in a location and manner that is accessible to the proposed ward or ward.
54.42 AnnotationThe right to counsel guaranteed under sub. (1) (b) includes the ward’s right to have counsel present during an interview with the guardian ad litem for the purpose of making a report to the court. Jennifer M. v. Maurer, 2010 WI App 8, 323 Wis. 2d 126, 779 N.W.2d 436, 08-1985.
54.42 AnnotationThe guardianship and protective placement statutes give certain rights under sub. (5) and s. 55.10 (4) to an individual who is the subject of a guardianship or protective placement petition, including the “right to be present” at the final hearing on the petition. Sections 54.44 (4) (a) and 55.10 (2) also require a petitioner to ensure that the individual who is the subject of a petition “attends” the final hearing, unless the individual’s guardian ad litem waives the attendance. Waiver, in this context, requires some affirmative relinquishment on the part of the holder. Those statutes protect an individual’s right to be physically present in the room where the hearing is held. Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62, 405 Wis. 2d 383, 983 N.W.2d 721, 22-0765.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Townsend v. Massey, 2011 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
Townsend v. Massey, 2011 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “The Masseys cite Wis. Stat. § 54.42 (5), which states: "The .”
In Re Guardianship of Jennifer M., 2010 WI App 8 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “A ward's right to counsel is guaranteed by Wis. Stat. § 54.42 (l)(a), 5 and as such the scope of that right is a question of statutory interpretation.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 54.42 , 54.44 (guardianship); Wis.”
Guardianship of L.H., 3 N.E.3d 92 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “ward’ ”), quoting from Wis. Stat. § 54.42 (1)(b). The due process model of adversarial representation is not less suited to guardianship and other mental health proceedings because there is so often a focus on medical and psychiatric issues in such cases.”
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§§ 54.42(5), 55.10(4) (2019-20).1 The statutes also require a petitioner (here, the County) to ensure that the individual who is the subject of a petition “attends” the final hearing, unless the individual’s guardian ad litem waives the attendance.”
Ozaukee Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. S. Z. (In re S.S.Z.), 921 N.W.2d 524 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 54.42(1)(c). Thus, S.S.Z. could have obtained "adequate legal representation" without "difficult[y] or inconvenien[ce]," but, having exercised her right to retain private counsel, she proceeded at her own expense.”
Richard Dallen v. Kathleen Dallen (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 54.42(3). In this case, M.D.’s adversary counsel did not request an independent evaluation until May 22, 2019—seventy-one days after the initial petition was filed.”
Dane Cnty. v. A. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 54.42(2) (“The proposed ward … has the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, including any physician or licensed psychologist who reports to the court concerning the proposed ward.”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 54.42. Jane’s GAL sent the court a letter contending that: (1) Lauer lacked standing to bring a petition for review of the conduct of a guardian because he was not an “interested person” under WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.42(1)(c) — 1 case
Ozaukee Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. S. Z. (In re S.S.Z.), 921 N.W.2d 524 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 54.42(1)(c). Thus, S.S.Z. could have obtained "adequate legal representation" without "difficult[y] or inconvenien[ce]," but, having exercised her right to retain private counsel, she proceeded at her own expense.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.42(2) — 1 case
Dane Cnty. v. A. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 54.42(2) (“The proposed ward … has the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, including any physician or licensed psychologist who reports to the court concerning the proposed ward.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.42(3) — 1 case
Richard Dallen v. Kathleen Dallen (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 54.42(3). In this case, M.D.’s adversary counsel did not request an independent evaluation until May 22, 2019—seventy-one days after the initial petition was filed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.42(5) — 1 case
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§§ 54.42(5), 55.10(4) (2019-20).1 The statutes also require a petitioner (here, the County) to ensure that the individual who is the subject of a petition “attends” the final hearing, unless the individual’s guardian ad litem waives the attendance.”
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.