On Point blog, page 6 of 484
COA affirms third standard (2.c.) ch. 51 appeal due to abnormal neck movements and previous food restriction
Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.
March Publication Order
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.
COA affirms suppression ruling based on illegible license plate
State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.
COA affirms CHIPS dispositional orders finding that circuit court exercised proper discretion in denying respondents’ petition to transfer jurisdiction to tribal court, authorizing County to exercise medical decision making, and admitting evidence of father’s risk assessment
Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2024AP1596, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Monroe County v. T.B., 2024AP1845, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA issued two decisions affirming the circuit court’s dispositional orders finding that T.B.’s (the mother) and G.L.B.’s (the father) son was in need of protection and services (CHIPS) and placing the child in out-of-home care. The COA rejected the parents’ arguments that the circuit court erroneously denied their petition to transfer jurisdiction to Ho-Chunk Tribal Court and that the court erred in granting medical decision-making authority to the Monroe County Department of Human Services (the Department). The COA also disagreed with the father’s argument that the circuit court erroneously admitted at trial evidence regarding risk assessments of his parenting skills.
COA affirms challenge to TPR disposition under erroneous exercise of discretion standard
Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.
Excessive water intake sufficient to find person “dangerous” under Chapter 51.
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body. The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.
COA reverses grant of summary judgment in TPR, holds that issues of material fact exist as to abandonment and failure to assume
J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.
In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.
COA holds that while service was defective in TPR, court’s factual findings merit affirmance
Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.
COA affirms resentencing denial, holds judge’s comments about defendant’s non-criminal sexual behavior, etc. did not show objective bias
State v. Anthony J. LaRose, 2022AP647-CR, District 3, 3/25/25 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
LaRose appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing on his conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, in which he claimed that the circuit court judge was biased against him based on three sets of facts. COA rejects all of LaRose’s arguments and affirms, holding that the court’s comments were related to appropriate sentencing factors and LaRose failed to establish sufficient risk of actual bias.