Respite care is a service covered by the Children’s Long-Term Support Program (CLTS), but respite care payments are not allowed to a parent or a primary caregiver in the participant’s household. In this case, the agency discovered that the petitioner’s respite provider, B.S., was also his co-parent: she co-owned the residence, she shared an email address with his mother, his mother listed her as her wife on the functional screen, and the petitioner stated he lives with his “moms.” ALJ Brian Schneider concluded that the CLTS agency correctly removed B.S. as a respite care provider because she lived with the petitioner and acted as a co-parent.
This decision was published with support from the Wisconsin chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Krause Financial.
Preliminary Recitals
Pursuant to a petition filed December 11, 2025, under Wis. Admin. Code, §HA 3.03(1), to review a decision by Brown County Human Services regarding the Children’s Long-Term Support Program (CLTS), a hearing was held on January 29, 2026, by telephone. The record was held open for seven days for petitioner’s to provide documents; nothing was received.
The issue for determination is whether petitioner’s co-parent can be paid for providing respite care.
PARTIES IN INTEREST:
Petitioner:
—
Respondent:
Department of Health Services
201 E. Washington Ave.
Madison, WI 53703
By: Megan Kolton
Brown County Human Services
111 N. Jefferson St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:
Brian C. Schneider
Division of Hearings and Appeals
Findings of Fact
- Petitioner is a resident of Brown County.
- Petitioner is eligible for CLTS through Brown County HHS. One of the services covered by CLTS is respite care. Petitioner’s respite care provider is B.S. (initials are used for confidentiality).
- In the fall, 2025, the agency investigated the family’s living situation. It determined that B.S. lives in the household and essentially acts as a co-parent of petitioner.
- Petitioner’s mother and B.S. are co-owners of the residence. Petitioner’s medical records show that petitioner lives with his “moms” and have as an email one shared by the two women. Petitioner’s mother asked that B.S. be listed as her wife on petitioner’s most recent functional screen, and school records show that petitioner lives with his mother and B.S. CLTS home visit records also show that petitioner’s mother and B.S. report that they live together.
- By a notice dated December 10, 2025, the agency informed petitioner’s mother that B.S. would no longer be paid for providing respite care. The notice did not discontinue respite care services; it meant only that B.S. could not be a paid respite care provider.
Discussion
The CLTS program started on January 1, 2004 after the federal Department of Health and Human Services informed the state department (DHS) that federal MA funding would no longer be available for in-home autism services. The department drafted and released the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver Manual for the CLTS Program (“the Manual”), with a current update as of December, 2025. It can be found on the internet at https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p02256.pdf. It does not appear that any changes in the update affect the issue in this matter.
Respite care is a covered service under CLTS, and petitioner’s care plan includes respite care. Manual, §4.6.26. The issue in this appeal is the limitation found in the Manual, §4.4.1: “Payment to a parent or a primary caregiver in the participant’s household is not allowed, except in certain circumstances for the transportation service.” The issue here is factual. B.S. has been a respite provider for petitioner, but the agency obtained evidence that B.S. both lives in the household and is essentially a co-parent of the children.
Evidence is overwhelming that B.S. lives with petitioner and is a primary caregiver along with petitioner’s mother. Petitioner’s mother testified that B.S. lives elsewhere. The record was held open for petitioner’s mother to provide a copy of B.S.’s lease. Nothing was received. I conclude that the agency action was correct.
Conclusions of Law
The CLTS agency correctly removed B.S. as a respite care provider under petitioner’s care plan because B.S. lives with petitioner and acts as a co-parent.
THEREFORE, it is
Ordered
That the petition for review is hereby dismissed.
[Request for a rehearing and appeal to court instructions omitted.]
If you found this decision useful, sign up for my email newsletter. You’ll get summaries of newly published decisions and a PDF of useful information on estate recovery.