Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 54.44 (2026)
Hearing
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
54.44(1)(a)(a) Time of hearing for petition. A petition for guardianship, other than a petition under par. (b) or (c) or s. 54.50 (1), shall be heard within 90 days after it is filed. The guardian ad litem and attorney for the proposed ward or ward shall be provided with a copy of the report of the examining physician or psychologist under s. 54.36 (1) at least 96 hours before the time of the hearing.
54.44(1)(b)(b) Time of hearing for certain appointments. A petition for guardianship of an individual who has been admitted to a nursing home or a community-based residential facility under s. 50.06 shall be heard within 60 days after it is filed. If an individual under s. 50.06 (3) alleges that an individual is making a health care decision under s. 50.06 (5) (a) that is not in the best interests of the incapacitated individual or if the incapacitated individual verbally objects to or otherwise actively protests the admission, the petition shall be heard as soon as possible within the 60-day period.
54.44(1)(c)1.1. If a motion for a hearing on a petition for receipt and acceptance of a foreign guardianship is made by the foreign ward, by a person who has received notice under s. 53.32 (2), or on the court’s own motion, a hearing on the petition shall be heard within 90 days after the petition is filed.
54.44(1)(c)2.2. If a petition for receipt and acceptance of a foreign guardianship includes a request to modify the provisions of the foreign guardianship, the petition shall be heard within 90 days after it is filed.
54.44(1)(c)3.3. If a person receiving notice of the petition for receipt and acceptance of the foreign guardianship challenges the validity of the foreign guardianship or the authority of the foreign court to appoint the foreign guardian, the court may stay the proceeding under this subsection to afford the opportunity to the interested person to have the foreign court hear the challenge and determine its merits.
54.44(2)(2) Standard of proof. Any determination by the court as to whether the proposed ward or ward is a minor, is incompetent, or is a spendthrift shall be by clear and convincing evidence.
54.44(3)(a)(a) The proposed guardian and any proposed standby guardian shall be physically present at the hearing unless the court excuses the attendance of either or, for good cause shown, permits attendance by telephone.
54.44(3)(b)(b) The petitioner, for a petition for receipt and acceptance of a foreign guardianship, shall be physically present at the hearing specified under sub. (1) (c) unless the court excuses the petitioner’s attendance or, for good cause shown, permits attendance by telephone.
54.44(4)(a)(a) Adult proposed ward or ward. The petitioner shall ensure that the proposed ward or ward attends the hearing unless the attendance is waived by the guardian ad litem. In determining whether to waive attendance by the proposed ward or ward, the guardian ad litem shall consider the ability of the proposed ward or ward to understand and meaningfully participate, the effect of the attendance of the proposed ward or ward on his or her physical or psychological health in relation to the importance of the proceeding, and the expressed desires of the proposed ward or ward. If the proposed ward or ward is unable to attend the hearing because of residency in a nursing home or other facility, physical inaccessibility, or a lack of transportation and if the proposed ward or ward, guardian ad litem, advocate counsel, or other interested person so requests, the court shall hold the hearing in a place where the proposed ward or ward may attend.
54.44(4)(b)(b) Minor proposed ward or ward. A minor proposed ward or ward is not required to attend the hearing.
54.44(4)(c)(c) Foreign ward. The petitioner for a petition for receipt and acceptance of a foreign guardianship shall ensure that the foreign ward attends the hearing unless the attendance is waived by the guardian ad litem. In determining whether to waive attendance by the foreign ward, the guardian ad litem shall consider the ability of the foreign ward to understand and meaningfully participate, the effect of the foreign ward’s attendance on his or her physical or psychological health in relation to the importance of the proceeding, and the foreign ward’s expressed desires. If the foreign ward is unable to attend the hearing because of residency in a nursing home or other facility, physical inaccessibility, or a lack of transportation and if the foreign ward, guardian ad litem, advocate counsel, or other interested person so requests, the court shall hold the hearing in a place where the foreign ward may attend.
54.44(5)(5) Privacy of hearing. Every hearing under this chapter shall be closed, unless the proposed ward or ward or his or her attorney acting with the proposed ward’s or ward’s consent or the attorney for a foreign ward moves that it be open. If the hearing is closed, only interested persons, their attorneys, and witnesses may be present.
54.44(5m)(5m) Participation by interested persons. An interested person may participate in the hearing on the petition at the court’s discretion.
54.44(6)(6) Proposed guardian unsuitable. If the court finds that the proposed guardian is unsuitable, the court shall request that a petition proposing a suitable guardian be filed, shall set a date for a hearing to be held within 30 days, and shall require the guardian ad litem to investigate the suitability of a new proposed guardian.
54.44 AnnotationThe statutory provisions for an interested person’s formal participation in guardianship and protective placement hearings are specific and limited. No statute provides for interested persons to demand a trial, present evidence, or raise evidentiary objections. A court could consider such participation helpful and in its discretion allow an interested person to participate to the extent it considers appropriate. Coston v. Joseph P., 222 Wis. 2d 1, 586 N.W.2d 52 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1210.
54.44 AnnotationSection 907.03 does not allow the proponent of an expert to use the expert solely as a conduit for the hearsay opinions of others. While in a civil proceeding there is no independent right to confront and cross-examine expert witnesses under the state and federal constitutions, procedures used to appoint a guardian and protectively place an individual must conform to the essentials of due process. Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223, 267 Wis. 2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377, 03-0967.
54.44 NoteNOTE: The above annotations relate to guardianships under former ch. 880, 2003 stats., prior to the revision of and renumbering of that chapter to this chapter by 2005 Wis. Act 387.
54.44 AnnotationIt would be unreasonable to not permit a forfeiture of the right to attend the hearing regardless of the respondent’s conduct. The right may be forfeited if after having been warned by the judge that the respondent will be removed if the respondent continues the disruptive behavior, the respondent nevertheless insists on conducting himself or herself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the hearing cannot be carried on with the respondent in the courtroom. Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160, 330 Wis. 2d 737, 795 N.W.2d 450, 09-0804.
54.44 AnnotationA party cannot waive a challenge to the competency of a court based on a statutory limitation period such as that in sub. (1) (a). Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123, 359 Wis. 2d 204, 857 N.W.2d 432, 13-2534.
54.44 AnnotationThe guardianship and protective placement statutes give certain rights under ss. 54.42 (5) and 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. Sub. (4) (a) and s. 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 12
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “filed a postdisposition motion making a number of arguments, including that the court lost competency to grant the foster parents' Chapter 54 guardianship petition by holding a timely hearing, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 54.44 (l)(a), which requires that "[a] petition for…”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Joseph argues that he had a right to be present for the entire hearing under Wis. Stat. §§ 54.44 (4) and 55.10 (2007-08).”
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “The individual over whom guardianship is sought—referred to in the statute as the “proposed ward or ward”—has certain statutory rights, including “the right to be present” at the hearing and “the right to have any hearing regarding the guardianship conducted in a location and…”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Kristina Secord, 2025 WI 2 (Wis. 2025). “§ 54.44 hearing and determines that an individual is incompetent and in need of a guardian, the circuit court may make a specific, additional finding that “the individual is incapable of understanding the objective of the elective process” and lacks the capacity “to register to…”
M. L.-F. v. Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 877 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “See Wis. Stat. § 54.44 (l)(a). These assertions, however, are not supported by documents in the appellate record.”
Richard Dallen v. Kathleen Dallen (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “” Richard’s initial guardianship petition was filed on March 12, 2019; therefore, the ninety-day “drop dead date” for a hearing from that filing date was June 10, 2019. However, Richard asserts that the ninety-day time frame began on the filing date of his amended petition:…”
Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. S. N. (In re Prot. Placement J.J.N.), 928 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “10(1) requires the circuit court to hear a petition for protective placement within sixty days of the date it is filed unless an extension of time is requested "by the petitioner, the individual sought to be protected or the individual's guardian ad litem, or the county…”
Waukesha Cnty. DH&HS v. M. A. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “8 Notably, the legislature subsequently codified Coston’s holding, adding a provision to the guardianship statute which provides that “[a]n interested person may participate in the hearing on the petition at the court’s discretion.”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Kristina Secord (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 54.44; and (5) the final order detailing the finding of incompetency and the legal consequences of such a determination, WIS.”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Lauer’s “Petition for Review of Incompetency Finding” and “Petition to Modify Guardianship” were filed on August 18, 2023, which was 389 days after the guardianship hearing held pursuant to § 54.44 on July 25, 2022. 16 No. 2023AP2332 ¶41 A Watts review under WIS.”
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). “'s settlement offers, even after the guardianship was denied; the defenses to the action were "legitimate and strong"; a comparison to costs and fees in similar cases is difficult because guardianship cases typically result in an order for guardianship; the case involved S.”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Kristina Secord (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 54.44; and (5) the final order detailing the finding of incompetency and the legal consequences of such a determination, WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.44(1)(a) — 3 cases
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “The individual over whom guardianship is sought—referred to in the statute as the “proposed ward or ward”—has certain statutory rights, including “the right to be present” at the hearing and “the right to have any hearing regarding the guardianship conducted in a location and…”
Richard Dallen v. Kathleen Dallen (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “” Richard’s initial guardianship petition was filed on March 12, 2019; therefore, the ninety-day “drop dead date” for a hearing from that filing date was June 10, 2019. However, Richard asserts that the ninety-day time frame began on the filing date of his amended petition:…”
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). “'s settlement offers, even after the guardianship was denied; the defenses to the action were "legitimate and strong"; a comparison to costs and fees in similar cases is difficult because guardianship cases typically result in an order for guardianship; the case involved S.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.44(4) — 1 case
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “The individual over whom guardianship is sought—referred to in the statute as the “proposed ward or ward”—has certain statutory rights, including “the right to be present” at the hearing and “the right to have any hearing regarding the guardianship conducted in a location and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.44(4)(a) — 2 cases
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “The individual over whom guardianship is sought—referred to in the statute as the “proposed ward or ward”—has certain statutory rights, including “the right to be present” at the hearing and “the right to have any hearing regarding the guardianship conducted in a location and…”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Joseph argues that he had a right to be present for the entire hearing under Wis. Stat. §§ 54.44 (4) and 55.10 (2007-08).”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.44(5) — 1 case
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Kristina Secord (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 54.44; and (5) the final order detailing the finding of incompetency and the legal consequences of such a determination, WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.44(5m) — 2 cases
Waukesha Cnty. DH&HS v. M. A. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “8 Notably, the legislature subsequently codified Coston’s holding, adding a provision to the guardianship statute which provides that “[a]n interested person may participate in the hearing on the petition at the court’s discretion.”
Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. S. N. (In re Prot. Placement J.J.N.), 928 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “10(1) requires the circuit court to hear a petition for protective placement within sixty days of the date it is filed unless an extension of time is requested "by the petitioner, the individual sought to be protected or the individual's guardian ad litem, or the county…”
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.