On Point blog, page 1 of 3
COA orders new trial in CHIPS proceeding because circuit court excluded evidence that respondent executed power of attorney to guarantee child’s care while she was in custody
State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.
COA affirms order denying child’s request for change of placement in CHIPS case
Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.
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.
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.
Defense Win! COA remands for new CHIPS trial
State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.
COA holds that trial court properly removed adversary counsel in CHIPS case; reverses order reducing lawyer’s fee
Richland County DH&HS v. D.M.K., 2022AP2190, District IV, 11/14/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat rare CHIPS appeal, COA upholds the circuit court’s decision to remove adversary counsel but reverses the court’s order modifying that attorney’s request for fees.
COA reverses default in CHIPS appeal, concludes conduct was not egregious or in bad faith
State v. M.A.C., 2023AP1281 & 1282, 7/2/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that the facts do not establish that “Molly’s” nonappearance at a status hearing in her CHIPS cases was egregious or in bad faith.
COA holds that parent forfeited jurisdictional challenge to CHIPS orders
Portage County v. D.A., 2023AP1237, 1255 & 1272, 5/9/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “David” presents a superficially knotty jurisdictional argument, COA ultimately holds that he has forfeited this otherwise non-meritorious legal issue.
COA rejects challenges to CHIPS permanency orders due to pro se litigants failure to adequately litigate appeal
Manitowoc County HSD v. K.R., 2022AP1975-78, 12/27/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Presented with a confusing pro se attack on permanency orders entered in these underlying CHIPS cases, COA affirms largely because it cannot ascertain the nature of the appellant’s challenge.
Circuit court properly ordered parent to comply with recommendations from out of state psychosexual evaluation in CHIPS matter
Manitowoc County v. M.B., 2023AP163-164, 9/20/23, District II(one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying a deferential standard of review, COA holds that the circuit court did not err when it ordered a parent to comply with an out-of-state psychosexual evaluation/assessment as a condition of return.