SCOW accepts review of important CHIPS case
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF & Waupaca County, 2024AP472, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 3/11/26
In a case that will impact an important procedural aspect of certain CHIPS cases, SCOW accepts review of Waupaca County’s petition seeking to reverse (something of) a defense win.
SCOW has accepted review of the following issues presented in Waupaca County’s petition for review:
1. Is Corporation Counsel a party as a statutory right pursuant to Wis. Stats. § 48.09(5) in actions arising under § 48.13 when
Corporation Counsel is not the petitioner?
2. Is Corporation Counsel a party representing the interest of the public pursuant to Wis. Stats. § 48.09(5) when the County
Department of Human Services is court ordered to provide services and funding in privately-filed petitions under § 48.13?
Those who recall the COA decision will immediately be struck by the compellingly sympathetic facts. S.G., a child who has endured what is described by COA as “torture” faced the expiration of a TPR order under which she was receiving services. Like many children in similarly dire straits, she filed a CHIPS petition on her own behalf, which would enable her to continue receiving services through her high school graduation as, in spite of everything, this survivor of various forms of abuse was on track to graduate high school and attend college. Waupaca County Corporation counsel, having gotten wind of the fact that this child was using the court system to her advantage, claimed to be a party and then filed a battery of motions seeking to defeat S.G. and prohibit her from receiving the services she requested. This resulted in the dismissal of the action at the circuit court level, although COA ultimately ruled on the moot case and concluded corporation counsel was not a party in these types of cases, a published decision which has had a ripple effect throughout the child welfare system. Now, Waupaca County has successfully petitioned for review in order to reverse S.G.’s somewhat illusory victory and obtain further guidance as to how this portion of the child welfare system properly functions.
What will SCOW do with the case? We’re not sure. One possible prediction: Could this be the case that ends up reframing the method by which statutory construction is conducted in Wisconsin? Three justices on the Court seem to think it is time to revisit those principles; this case, heavily reliant on the questioned Kalal decision, seems to invite further debate on that topic.
Timing-wise, it is also worth noting that the COA decision is authored by Judge Chris Taylor who is presently running for a seat on SCOW. If she wins her election in April, that means there will be a six-member panel to decide the case consisting of Chief Justice Karofsky and Justices Ziegler, Dallet, Hagedorn, Protasiewicz and Crawford. If Judge Lazar prevails, however, that adds another avowedly strict textualist to the bench, a development that could impact the relatively dry legal issue at the heart of this appeal.
Regardless of the outcome of the pending election, it will also be interesting to observe how the justices apply their legal experiences to a case that scrambles the usual binary, as here the public defender represents an obvious victim and it is the County seeking to deny that child services. We expect sharp questions not only from Chief Justice Karofsky, but also potentially from Justice Protasiewicz, a former CHIPS prosecutor who has referenced the way that those experiences inform her perspective in remarks during at least some oral arguments.