Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings.
A protective placement order was entered for P.C.A. (referred to as “Piper’) in 2021 after she was hospitalized due to a fall that caused healthcare workers to recommend an assisted living facility for her. (¶ 2). A psychologist found that she suffers from alcohol abuse and depression, which were likely to be permanent, had a primary need for residential care and custody, that her incapacity created a substantial risk of harm to herself or others, and that her incapacity was permanent or likely to be permanent. (¶ 2). The protective placement order was also based on a Pierce County social worker’s reports and testimony stating that the county had been in contact with Piper for several years after receiving multiple reports concerned for her physical welfare; specifically, that she was hospitalized five times in the past two months due to weakness, alcohol use, inability to walk, and physical health decline. The social worker reported that Piper was found in her home sitting in her own excrement and that, without intervention, “the current situation at the residence would result” in Piper’s death. (¶ 4).
Piper’s protective placement was continued in 2023 based on a psychologist’s testimony that her memory, reasoning, emotional/behavior functioning, and other executive functioning were severely impaired and she was unable to care for herself due to recurrent falls, dietary insufficiency, and recurrent infections; she was diagnosed with dementia, alcohol use disorder, alcohol hepatitis, hypertension, and depression. (¶ 11). The psychologist’s report concluded that Piper suffers from major neurocognitive disorder due to alcohol dementia. (¶ 12). The order continuing protective placement was also based on a social worker’s testimony that Piper was physically and verbally abusive to staff and her roommate at the assisted living facility and tried to leave the facility. (¶ 13).
The circuit court again continued Piper’s protective placement in 2024, which was the subject of the current appeal. At the hearing, a psychologist testified that he tried to examine Piper, but she elected to remain silent. Nevertheless, the psychologist said the examination was “very productive” because Piper behaved consistently with the history in her records and with his previous examination of her. (¶ 19). The psychologist reported that Piper was diagnosed with cancer in the past year for which she refused treatment, had cellulitis or an infection, did not attend medical appointments, and ate only white bread. (¶ 20).
The psychologist concluded that Piper suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder that places her at risk to harm herself through self-neglect and places others at risk of physical assault by Piper, and that the disorder is permanent or likely to be permanent. (¶ 20). He determined Piper requires residential care due to her history of falls, head injuries, multiple medical problems, and that she suffers from alcoholic encephalopathy and will incur brain damage if she continued to drink alcohol. The psychologist considered her current level of residential care and custody at an unlocked residential facility necessary to minimize the risk that she will drink alcohol. (¶ 21).
A Pierce County social worker testified that Piper requires supervision with all of her activities of daily living; specifically, hygiene, meal preparation, ambulation, and personal cares. The social worker said Piper tried to leave the assisted living facility multiple times to return to an apartment she shared with her boyfriend. The social worker also reported that Piper refused to see a doctor or take medications to treat her medical conditions. (¶ 22).
Piper testified that she did not need any assistance with ambulation, bathing, cooking, cleaning, or financial management. She disputed that she needed medications and said she would live with her brother if her protective placement was not continued. (¶ 23).
The circuit court found the psychologist’s and social worker’s testimony credible and concluded Piper suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder, that she has a need for supervision and monitoring due to her need for assistance with activities of daily living, and that her current placement is the least restrictive environment consistent with her needs. (¶ 25).
Piper argued on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to continue her protective placement because the County did not present sufficient evidence that she has a primary need for residential care and custody, that she is incompetent, and that her condition creates a substantial risk of harm to herself or others. (¶ 26). However, the Court considered Piper’s arguments to “essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence and to find her credible.” (¶ 46). Given the circuit court’s role as the “sole arbiter of credibility issues,” and ample evidence to support the circuit court’s factual findings, the Court affirmed the order to continue protective placement. (¶ 46).
Although the Court focused on the facts of Piper’s case, its remarks with respect to the applicability of evidence from prior protective placement hearings are noteworthy for such cases moving forward. The Court observed that its 2022 decision in J.M. (see our post here) established that all reports and documents that have been admitted into evidence in prior protective placement proceedings may be relied upon. (¶ 29).
The Court interpreted J.M. to hold that evidence that has been adjudicated – documentary evidence that was admitted and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings following those hearings – may be considered at subsequent due process hearings. However, “future courts cannot consider testimony regarding facts that were not adopted by the circuit court and thereby have not been adjudicated.” (¶ 31 n.7). The Court remarked that its decision in S.S. (see our post here) stating that “hearing testimony” from prior hearings may be considered at a subsequent due process hearing “overstated the extent to which a circuit court can consider evidence from prior Watts hearings.” (¶ 31 n.7).
