Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 54.68 (2026)
Review of conduct of guardian
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
54.68(1)(1) Continuing jurisdiction of court. The court that appointed the guardian or that granted a petition for acceptance and receipt of a foreign guardianship has continuing jurisdiction over the guardian. Within a reasonable period of time after granting a petition for receipt and acceptance of a foreign guardianship under s. 54.46 (1r), the court shall review the provisions of the guardianship and, as part of its review, shall inform the guardian and ward of services that may be available to the ward.
54.68(2)(2) Cause for court action against a guardian. Any of the following, if committed by a guardian with respect to a ward or the ward’s income or assets, constitutes cause for a remedy of the court under sub. (4):
54.68(2)(a)(a) Failing to file timely an inventory or account, as required under this chapter, that is accurate and complete.
54.68(2)(cm)(cm) Knowingly isolating a ward from the ward’s family members or violating a court order under s. 50.085 (2).
54.68(2)(e)(e) Failing to provide adequately for the personal needs of the ward from the ward’s available assets and income, including any available public benefits.
54.68(2)(f)(f) Failing to exercise due diligence and reasonable care in assuring that the ward’s personal needs are being met in the least restrictive environment consistent with the ward’s needs and incapacities.
54.68(2)(h)(h) Failing to disclose conviction for a crime that would have prevented appointment of the person as guardian.
54.68(2)(j)(j) Other than as provided in pars. (a) to (i), failing to perform any duties of a guardian or performing acts prohibited to a guardian as specified in ss. 54.18, 54.19, 54.20, 54.22, 54.25, and 54.62.
54.68(3)(3) Procedure. Upon the filing of a petition for review of the conduct of a guardian, the court shall hold a hearing in not less than 10, nor more than 60, days and shall order that the petitioner provide notice of the hearing to the ward, the guardian, and any other persons as determined by the court. The court may authorize use by the petitioner of any of the methods of discovery specified in ch. 804 in support of the petition to review conduct of the guardian.
54.68(4)(4) Remedies of the court. If petitioned by any party or on the court’s own motion and after finding cause as specified in sub. (2), a court may do any of the following:
54.68(4)(a)(a) Order the guardian to file an inventory or other report or account required of the guardian.
54.68(4)(b)(b) Require the guardian to reimburse the ward or, if deceased, the ward’s estate for losses incurred as the result of the guardian’s breach of a duty to the ward.
54.68(4)(c)(c) Impose a forfeiture of up to $10,000 on the guardian, or deny compensation for the guardian or both.
54.68(4)(e)(e) Enter any other order that may be necessary or appropriate to compel the guardian to act in the best interests of the ward or to otherwise carry out the guardian’s duties.
54.68(5)(5) Removal of paid guardian. The court may remove a paid guardian if changed circumstances indicate that a previously unavailable volunteer guardian is available to serve and that the change would be in the best interests of the ward.
54.68(6)(6) Fees and costs in proceedings. In any proceeding under sub. (2) or (5), all of the following apply:
54.68(6)(a)(a) The court may require the guardian to pay personally any costs of the proceeding, including costs of service and attorney fees.
54.68(6)(b)(b) Notwithstanding a finding of incompetence, a ward who is petitioning the court under sub. (2) may retain legal counsel, the selection of whom is subject to court approval, and contract for the payment of fees, regardless of whether or not the guardian consents or whether or not the court finds cause under sub. (2).
54.68 AnnotationSub. (2) (cm), which prohibits “isolating” a ward from a family member, excludes denials of visitation based on the ward's best interest. Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2025 WI App 52, 418 Wis. 2d 155, 25 N.W.3d 293, 24-1450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Stephen R. v. Ilana C., 2011 WI App 13 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
Stephen R. v. Ilana C., 2011 WI App 13 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “We note that Wis. Stat. § 54.68 provides for the continuing jurisdiction of the court, including review of a guardian's conduct for failing to act in the best interests of the ward.”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Lauer contends that he was entitled to a noticed hearing on his petition pursuant to § 54.68(3) and that the circuit court should have granted Lauer’s motions to add him as a party to the case, to grant him access to the eFiling system, and to appoint adversary counsel for Jane.”
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 54.68, seeking to either remove Guardians of Tomorrow as Jane’s guardian or compel it to act in what Lauer viewed to be Jane’s best interests.”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 54.68(2)(cm), we decided that the circuit court did not err in finding that Kelly was acting in Cory’s best interest by limiting his contact with Russell and denying Russell’s Motion.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(1) — 1 case
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(2) — 3 cases
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 54.68, seeking to either remove Guardians of Tomorrow as Jane’s guardian or compel it to act in what Lauer viewed to be Jane’s best interests.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(2)(c) — 1 case
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 54.68, seeking to either remove Guardians of Tomorrow as Jane’s guardian or compel it to act in what Lauer viewed to be Jane’s best interests.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(2)(cm) — 2 cases
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 54.68(2)(cm), we decided that the circuit court did not err in finding that Kelly was acting in Cory’s best interest by limiting his contact with Russell and denying Russell’s Motion.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(2)(g) — 1 case
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(2)(j) — 1 case
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(3) — 5 cases
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Lauer contends that he was entitled to a noticed hearing on his petition pursuant to § 54.68(3) and that the circuit court should have granted Lauer’s motions to add him as a party to the case, to grant him access to the eFiling system, and to appoint adversary counsel for Jane.”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 54.68, seeking to either remove Guardians of Tomorrow as Jane’s guardian or compel it to act in what Lauer viewed to be Jane’s best interests.”
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 54.68(2)(cm), we decided that the circuit court did not err in finding that Kelly was acting in Cory’s best interest by limiting his contact with Russell and denying Russell’s Motion.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(4) — 3 cases
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
Kelly R. Rose v. C. R. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 54.68 and 50.085(2), “[t]he Court may not issue an order compelling visitation if the Court finds … [that Cory], while having the capacity to evaluate and communicate decisions regarding visitation, expressed a desire not to have visitation with [Russell]” or that “visitation…”
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Lauer contends that he was entitled to a noticed hearing on his petition pursuant to § 54.68(3) and that the circuit court should have granted Lauer’s motions to add him as a party to the case, to grant him access to the eFiling system, and to appoint adversary counsel for Jane.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(4)(b) — 1 case
L. H. v. Easter Seals (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 54.68(1). Klein therefore sought a stay of this matter until a personal representative could be appointed and substituted for L.”
— Wis. Stat. § 54.68(5) — 1 case
Outagamie Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. J. E. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Lauer contends that he was entitled to a noticed hearing on his petition pursuant to § 54.68(3) and that the circuit court should have granted Lauer’s motions to add him as a party to the case, to grant him access to the eFiling system, and to appoint adversary counsel for Jane.”
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.