On Point
View all >Defense win: COA reverses TPR dispositional order
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.J.T., 2026AP794, 6/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
CJT appeals the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son, JJT, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the required factors at disposition. Despite the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA agrees, reversing the termination order and remanding for a proper exercise of discretion.
SCOTUS denies cert. while Justice Sotomayor encourages Court in a future case to correct lower courts’ improper standard for assessing prejudice for IAC claims based on Batson.
Clark v. Mississippi, USSC No. 25-6846, 6/8/2026, denying petition for certiorari; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS denied Tony Terrell Clark’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision affirming his conviction at a capital trial. Clark argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection because his trial lawyer did not adequately raise a Batson challenge when the State struck black jurors at a rate five times more than white jurors. Justice Sotomayor joined the Court’s decision to deny certiorari because Clark did not argue his counsel’s performance was deficient, but explained in an accompanying statement why the Court needs to address the conflict among state and federal courts regarding the standard to evaluate prejudice for a Batson claim.
COA affirms remedial sanction entered against attorney in CHIPS cases
Yacoub v. St. Croix County, 2023AP758, 759, 760, 761 & 762, 5/27/26, District III (ineligible for publication) case activity.
COA affirms judgment requiring Attorney Sarah Yacoub to pay $4,663.03 in costs and attorney fees as a remedial sanction after the circuit court found her in contempt for intentionally disclosing confidential information from 5 CHIPS cases.
COA: To continue protective placement, county does not need to show prior instances of specific harm to prove substantial risk of future harm.
Ozaukee County v. J.J.W., 2025AP1702, 6/3/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order continuing “Jacob’s” protective placement and determined the County did not need to establish a substantial risk of future harm by presenting evidence of previous harm identical to the harm that is anticipated.