Section 55.11 - Comprehensive evaluation; recommendations; statements(1) Before ordering protective placement or protective services for any individual, the court shall require a comprehensive evaluation of the individual sought to be protected, if such an evaluation has not already been made. The court may utilize available multidisciplinary resources in the community in determining the need for protective placement or protective services. The county department or an agency with which it contracts under s. 55.02(2) shall cooperate with the court in securing available resources. The court or the cooperating agency obtaining the evaluation shall request appropriate information which shall include at least the following: (a) The address of the place where the individual is residing and the person or agency who is providing services at present, if any.(b) A resume of any professional treatment and services provided to the individual by the department or agency in connection with the problem creating the need for protective placement or protective services.(c) A medical, psychological, social, vocational, and educational evaluation and review, if necessary, and any recommendations for or against maintenance of partial legal rights as provided in s. 54.25(2). The evaluation and review shall include recommendations for the individual's placement that are consistent with the requirements of s. 55.12(3), (4), and (5).(2) If requested by the individual sought to be protected, or anyone on the individual's behalf, the individual sought to be protected has the right at his or her own expense, or, if indigent, at the expense of the county where the petition is filed, to secure an independent comprehensive evaluation, if an independent comprehensive evaluation has not already been made. The individual, or anyone on the individual's behalf, may present a report of this independent comprehensive evaluation or the evaluator's personal testimony as evidence at the hearing.(3) A copy of the comprehensive evaluation and any independent comprehensive evaluation shall be provided to the individual's guardian, agent under any activated health care power of attorney, and guardian ad litem, and to the individual or the individual's attorney at least 96 hours in advance of the hearing to determine protective placement or protective services.(4) Where applicable by reason of the particular disability, the county department or an agency with which it contracts under s. 55.02(2) that has responsibility where the individual has legal residence shall make a recommendation for protective placement or protective services.(5) If the court is considering protective placement of the individual in a center for the developmentally disabled, the court shall request a statement or testimony from the department regarding whether the protective placement is appropriate for the individual's needs and whether it is consistent with the purpose of the center under s. 51.06(1).(6) If the individual has a developmental disability and the court is considering protective placement of the individual in an intermediate facility or a nursing facility, the court shall request a statement or testimony from the county department of the individual's county of residence that is participating in the program under s. 46.278 as to whether the individual's needs could be met in a noninstitutional setting, except that, if s. 46.279(4m) applies to the individual, the court shall request the statement or testimony from the department, rather than the county department.2005 a. 264 ss. 131 to 134, 161; 2005 a. 387 s. 117; 2007 a. 45.The above annotations relate to protective placements under ch. 55, stats., prior to the revision of that chapter by 2005 Wis. Act 264.
A proposed ward's rightful refusal to participate in a court-ordered evaluation will not obstruct a guardianship and protective placement proceeding. Due process requires that the examining professional, when confronted with an uncooperative individual, engage in an independent review of all records that are available. Due process prevents the examining professional from regurgitating the opinions of other physicians and psychologists, without independently confirming the facts those opinions are based upon. Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223, 267 Wis. 2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377, 03-0967.