COA holds circuit courts may preclude parents from participating virtually at TPR disposition
State v. G.W., 2025AP1214, 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
G.W. appeals from the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, arguing that the circuit court denied him due process and erroneously exercised its discretion when it did not allow him to appear virtually at the dispositional hearing. COA affirms.
The child, “Sarah,” was removed from her parents’ care when she was 7 months old. The state later filed a TPR petition, which alleged that G.W., “Gabriel,” failed to assume parental responsibility. Gabriel was incarcerated during the TPR proceedings. (¶2). Gabriel pleaded no contest to the ground alleged. (¶3). At that time, the circuit court informed him he would have to appear in person at the dispositional hearing, and if he did not appear that he could be found in default and lose his chance to participate. (¶3). After requesting an adjournment to the first dispositional hearing scheduled, which was granted, Gabriel’s attorney reached out to the clerk to inquire whether Gabriel could appear virtually. (¶¶4-5). The request was denied, but the court informed Gabriel it would consider a motion to appear virtually if one was filed. (¶5). Gabriel did not move to appear virtually, so the court ordered his his production and transport. (¶¶5-6). Gabriel refused the transport. (¶6). At the dispositional hearing, the court proceeded without Gabriel’s participation despite his availability via Zoom. (¶8). The court terminated Gabriel’s parental rights to Sarah. (¶8).
Gabriel argues that he was denied due process when the circuit court refused to allow him to appear virtually because he was unable to meaningfully
participate at the dispositional hearing, and that the court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to consider the criteria under Wis. Stat. § 885.56(1) before precluding his virtual appearance. (¶10). COA concludes that Gabriel was afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate in person at the dispositional hearing, and due process requires the opportunity to participate. (¶18). The circuit court also gave Gabriel multiple notices that he would have to appear in person or file a motion to appear virtually.
COA also disagrees that § 885.56(1) requires the circuit court to consider certain criteria before refusing to allow him to appear virtually. The statute provides that “the circuit court may consider one or more of the” criteria under sub. (1)(a)-(l), which is permissive. A comment to the statute states that the court may deny the use of video “in any circumstances” and “regardless of the guidelines.” Therefore, COA concludes the court did not err when it refused to permit Gabriel to appear virtually without discussing the criteria under § 885.56. (¶¶19-23).
Finally, Gabriel takes issue with the circuit court’s statement that he “declined to appear” and argues that it relied on this “incorrect finding” because he appeared virtually. COA rejects this argument, reasoning that the court’s characterization of Gabriel’s refusal to appear in person does not demonstrate that it relied on incorrect information in preventing his remote appearance. (¶¶24-25).