State v. M.W., 2025AP2364 &2365 , 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to two of her children, “Liam” and “Karen,” and the order denying her motion for postdisposition relief. She argues that her trial counsel was ineffective when by failing object to multiple instances of hearsay, and her due process
rights were violated when the court ruled that she could not introduce evidence at trial that another child remained in her care. COA affirms.
The two children were removed from M.W.’s home after police were dispatched and found M.W. incoherent and unresponsive. (¶3). Liam and Karen were found to be children in need of protection and services (CHIPS), and the order required M.W. to fulfill certain conditions of return including providing “safe care”, having a “safe, suitable, and stable home,” controlling her “alcohol addiction,” and not allowing violence in her home or in front of her children. (Gabriel pleaded no contest to the ground alleged. (¶¶3-4). The state later petitioned to terminate M.W.’s parental rights, alleging that M.W. failed to assume parental responsibility of Liam and Karen, and continuing CHIPS. (¶2).
M.W. contested the allegations in the petitions, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The state and GAL asked the court to preclude M.W. from presenting evidence related to the fact that her youngest child, Thomas (who was born after the events alleged in the petitions occurred) remained in her care. Counsel for M.W. objected, but the court ruled that such evidence was irrelevant. (¶5). At trial, an officer and an intake worker testified about statements made by M.W.’s other children during the incident and other previous calls, and a child welfare worker testified about statements made by M.W.’s treatment providers and the foster parents. (¶¶6-12). The jury found that both grounds for termination existed, and the court later terminated M.W.’s parental rights. (¶13). M.W. filed a motion requesting a new trial based on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. After a hearing, the circuit court denied her motion. The court concluded that the statements had not been offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but had been offered to explain why Liam and Karen had been removed or how M.W. had failed to fulfill the conditions, and thus were not hearsay. (¶14).
First, COA holds that M.W. failed to demonstrate that she received ineffective assistance because the alleged hearsay statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. (¶22). Rather, COA concludes that all of the challenged testimony was offered either to explain why Liam and Karen were removed from the home, or why the worker believed that M.W. had not satisfied the conditions of return. (¶¶22-25). Therefore, COA concludes that counsel’s performance was not deficient and does not proceed to the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis. (¶26).
Second, COA concludes that the court did not violate M.W.’s due process rights when it ruled that she could not introduce evidence that her youngest child remained in her care. While M.W. contends this ruling prevented her from presenting a meaningful defense, the court finds that the evidence she sought to present would have been speculative and irrelevant. M.W. argues that the evidence was relevant to whether she met the conditions of return because Thomas would not have been left in her care if she did not have a safe home, had not addressed her alcohol issues, or had failed to stay away from domestic violence. (¶28). As to the failure to assume ground, M.W. argues the evidence would have been relevant to whether she had accepted responsibility for the care of Liam and Karen, as it “showed her dedication to maintaining a home that was safe and stable for children.” (¶29). COA agrees with the circuit court’s determination that evidence that Thomas remained in M.W.’s care was not relevant to the grounds as to Liam and Karen, and the argument that Thomas would not have been left in her care had she failed to provide a safe home “is pure speculation.” (¶32).