On Point blog, page 1 of 269
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.
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.
COA: Driver suspected of operating under the influence not entitled to alternative test to measure intoxication until arrest.
Portage County v. Adam N. Dombrowski, 2025AP204, 5/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that a driver suspected of operating while intoxicated was not entitled to an alternative test to measure the driver’s blood, breath, or urine until he was arrested. The circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood test were therefore affirmed.
COA affirms TPR orders over sufficiency challenges
State v. M.G., 2025AP2883-2888, 5/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.G. appeals orders terminating her parental rights to her six children on the basis that the circuit court erred when it found that the state had proven by clear and convincing evidence that child protective services made reasonable efforts and she failed to assume parental responsibility for the three youngest children. COA affirms.
COA addresses multi-pronged attack on TPR orders and affirms
State v. J.G., III,, 2025AP469-474, 5/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although J.G. levies a number of appellate attacks, COA finds his arguments uniformly unavailing and affirms.
COA affirms recommitment and concludes challenge to medication order is moot
Winnebago County v. E.R.B., 2025AP2522, 5/14/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders extending ERB’s commitment and authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the commitment order, and that the medication order is moot, as it previously expired.
COA reverses circuit court’s order denying transcript fee waiver
Village of Hales Corners v. Aman D. Singh, 2024AP2055 & 2024AP2056, 5/12/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s request to waive the transcript fee for his appeals.
COA affirms order continuing protective placement
Waukesha County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.O., 2025AP2640, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms an order continuing “Cathy’s” protective placement based on concerns about her lack of independence and alcoholism.
COA affirms extending involuntary commitment based on history of not taking medication and suicidal ideation.
Walworth County v. D.J.F., 2025AP2522, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order extending D.J.F.’s involuntary commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.
COA finds motorist not in Miranda custody during traffic stop
State of Wisconsin v. Kara S. Kluck, 2023AP952-CR, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the presence of multiple officers, COA finds the test for custody is not satisfied by this interaction and affirms.