On Point blog, page 25 of 484
COA rejects “love and affection” defense in sad TPR case
State v. S.F., 2023AP1699, 1702-1705, 12/12/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In an all-around sad TPR appeal, S.F. (“Sabrina”) challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that grounds existed to terminate and (2) the court’s discretionary decision to terminate her parental rights to her five children. Despite the fact that neither court doubted Sabrina’s love and affection for her children, the court of appeals affirms.
COA rejects challenges to recommitment and involuntary medication
Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication.
COA says no medical testimony necessary to continue ch. 55 protective placement
Douglas County v. J.M., 2022AP2035, 11/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“James” was subjected to a guardianship under ch. 54 and a protective placement under ch. 55 in 2020. He had annual reviews of placement in 2021 and 2022; the last one is the subject of this appeal. James argues that the county was obligated to put on medical expert testimony to meet its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he meets three of the elements for a protective placement (he does not dispute that he is an adult who’s been found incompetent, the remaining element). The court of appeals delves into the record of past hearings and holds that these older filings fill in the gaps. But isn’t the point of a due-process (Watts) review to determine how the person is doing now?
COA reverses in another D.J.W. win for failure to make specific factual findings
Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2023AP863, 12/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another defense win reliant on Langlade County v. D.J.W., COA holds that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings in this Chapter 51 appeal.
COA rejects argument that margin of error undermined sufficiency of evidence for PAC conviction
Columbia County v. Carter Ray Smits, 2023AP241, 12/7/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the analyst’s testimony that, given the margin of error for the lab result, it was “equally likely” Smits was under as opposed to over the legal limit, COA affirms.
COA rejects sufficiency and erroneous exercise of discretion challenges in TPR appeal
State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.
COA rejects kitchen sink approach in appeal of multi-child TPR
State v. T.J., 2023AP1239-1242, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a battery of legal challenges, COA swiftly and efficiently marches toward affirmance in this TPR appeal.
COA upholds circuit court’s decision to exclude defendant’s proffered evidence regarding field sobriety tests at PAC trial
State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
COA rejects loss of competency claim in protective placement appeal
Racine County v. B.L.M., 2023AP757, 11/22/23, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a creative challenge to a continued protective placement order, COA rejects any argument that the circuit court lost competency by failing to timely reappoint a GAL in this protective placement appeal.
COA applies and rejects Jodie W. based challenge to “continuning denial” based TPR order
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., 2023AP1229-1232, 11/16/23, District IV (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In Kenosha Cnty. DHHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, ¶56, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, the court overturned a TPR order premised on a parent’s failure to meet “an impossible condition of return, without consideration of any other relevant facts and circumstances particular to the parent.” R.H.H. argued that he was likewise subject to an “impossible” condition of return because the dispositional order that denied him placement or visitation with his four children required him to complete sex offender treatment and domestic violence programming. The court rejects his due process-based claim, for multiple reasons, including that R.H.H., failed to introduce evidence to support his assertions that his confinement in prison or his pending criminal appeal made it “impossible” for him to meet his conditions of return. (Op., ¶21).