On Point blog, page 5 of 8
COA upholds contempt finding against defense lawyer in CHIPS matter
David Patton v. Circuit Court for Kenosha County, 2023AP809-FT & 2023AP810-FT, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In an appeal displaying the extreme deference accorded to the circuit court’s contempt finding, COA defers to the circuit court’s decision to order a $100 contempt sanction against a lawyer in a CHIPS matter.
COA skirts A.G. claim in TPR appeal based on its reading of the record, applies usual deference to circuit court’s termination order
State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.
COA disregards business as usual and reverses default judgment in Milwaukee County TPR
State v. C.D., 2023AP1025, District I, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an exciting defense win, District I signals a willingness to critically review default orders entered in Milwaukee County.
Circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion in ordering default judgment; terminating parent’s rights
State of Wisconsin v. M.S.H., 2023AP692, District I, 8/1/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
A parent’s non-cooperation with an involuntary TPR leads to a default judgment and, despite some compelling arguments, COA rejects her invitation to reweigh the dispositional evidence and reverse the order terminating her parental rights.
Parent’s challenges to TPR order affirmed under deferential standard of review
State v. M.H., 2023AP732, District I, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
M.H. raises two challenges to a circuit court order terminating her parental rights. Under an exceedingly deferential standard of review, both claims fail.
SCOW reverses COA and finds that circuit court exercised “sound discretion” when it granted a mistrial based on evidence later found to be admissible
State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2023 WI 57, 6/29/23, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; habeas granted, No. 24-2980; case activity (including briefs)
In yet another reversal of a defense win, a divided Court upholds the circuit court’s exercise of discretion, despite serious criticisms of the circuit court’s reasoning made by the dissenters.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion when it entered an individualized order terminating parental rights of one parent
State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.
Circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying criminal defendant access to juvenile records
Manitowoc County H.S.D. v. T.H., 2022AP1631, District II, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Applying a deferential standard of review, the court of appeals rejects T.H.’s attempts to obtain CPS records he claims are essential to present a complete defense in a related criminal case.
SCOW reverses grant of new trial by deferring to circuit court’s exercise of discretion when denying motion for mistrial
State v. Eric J. Debrow, 2023 WI 54, 6/23/23, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In yet another reversal of a defense win, SCOW defers to the circuit court’s decision denying a motion for mistrial but slightly muddies the waters as to the proper legal analysis when assessing mistrial claims on appeal.
COA rejects mother’s claim that circuit court improperly weighed best interest factors at TPR disposition
State v. E.B., 2022AP1882, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
This case concerns only the disposition phase of E.B.’s TPR case. She argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion with regard to the best interest of the child factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3). Specifically, E.B. argued that the circuit court did not give her own testimony enough weight and gave too much weight to the foster mother’s testimony. However, E.B. does not argue that the circuit court failed to consider any specific factor or made clearly erroneous findings based on the evidence presented at disposition. Because circuit courts retain discretion to regarding “the weight assigned to each factor and the credibility assigned to each witness’s testimony,” the court affirms the TPR order. (Opinion, ¶15).