COA affirms TPR order, rejects arguments premised on “substantial likelihood” question for continuing CHIPS as undeveloped and forfeited
Kenosha County v. V.L.W., 2025AP1914, 11/12/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Victor’s” arguments on appeal, which are all based on the continuing CHIPS “substantial likelihood” provision applying in his case. COA concludes that Victor did not prove this provision, which requires that the has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months, should apply.
Victor’s son, “Vance” was removed from his parents’ home when they were arrested for drug dealing in 2019. The circuit court found Vance to be in need of protection or services in early 2020. Victor was incarcerated until late 2022. (¶2). In 2021, while Victor was incarcerated, the county filed a petition to termiante his parental rights to Vance. Victor contested the petition, and the court held a grounds hearing in May 2024 to determine grounds (continuing CHIPS). A jury found that Vance continued to be a child in need of protection or services. The court subsequently held a dispositional hearing, after which it terminated Victor’s rights. (¶3).
Victor makes three claims on appeal: 1) that the circuit court erred when it excluded evidence after the date of the petition because Vance had been placed out of the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months; (2) by excluding such evidence, Victor was denied his substantive due process right to put on a defense; and (3) the jury was incorrectly instructed on the law. (¶4). Each of these arguments is dependent on the statutory language requiring that “if the child has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months,” the jury must find “that there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not meet these conditions as of the date on which the child will have been placed outside the home for 15 of the most recent 22 months.” Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)3. (¶5).
At trial, counsel for all parties, including Victor, agreed that Vance had been placed outside Victor’s home for more than 15 of the most recent 22 months, and a stipulation related to Victor’s dates of incarceration was read to the jury. (¶6). However, Victor’s arguments on appeal are based on the fact that county filed the TPR petition 3 days before Vance had been placed outside Victor’s home for 15 months. He assumes that the “substantial likelihood” element applies due to this fact. (¶7). COA concludes that Victor’s assertion is undeveloped and his appellate arguments were forfeited. (¶¶7-8).