On Point blog, page 2 of 3
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.
COA affirms father’s pro se challenge to revised CHIPS order
Waukesha County v. C.M.M., 2022AP2081, District 2, 7/19/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.M.M. (“Charles”) challenges a revised CHIPS dispositional order that eliminated visits between Charles and his son, A.M.M. Charles’ claim on appeal is that the circuit court erred by (1) substituting a “Criminal Division Judge” instead of a “Juvenile Division Judge” and (2) doing so without following the proper procedure. The court of appeals sees no errors and affirms.
“Active efforts” to preserve family required by ICWA are measured at time of disposition, not by long-term prospect for parent to regain custody
Brown County v. J.J., 2021AP1079, District 3, 3/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Before an Indian child subject to a CHIPS proceeding is placed out of the home of his or her parent or Indian guardian, § 48.028(4)(d)2. and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) both require, among other things, proof by clear and convincing evidence that “active efforts, as described in [§ 48.028(4)](g) 1., have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian child’s family and that those efforts have proved unsuccessful.” The court finds the County proved it made “active efforts” in this case.
Challenges to CHIPS order rejected
Portage County v. D.A., 2021AP1683, 2021AP1685, 2021AP1686, District 4, 3/24/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 21AP1683)
D.A. (“David”) raises various challenges to the finding his three children are in need of protection or services and to the dispositional orders. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
Evidence bearing on witness credibility discovered post-trial doesn’t require new CHIPS trial
State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial.
Order placing child outside parent’s home was supported by the evidence
Wood County DHS v. P.R., 2020AP947, 6/24/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
P.R. unsuccessfully challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the CHIPS court’s decision to remove her daughter, K., from her home after K. alleged that P.R.’s spouse, M.R., sexually assaulted her.
COA: Mother’s CHIPS petition properly granted
State v. M.A., 2019AP1089, 7/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.’s son J.A. was the subject of several delinquency petitions; each was converted to a JIPS proceeding because J.A. was not competent. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). Eventually, M.A. filed a CHIPS petition in an apparent attempt to alter the constellation of services available to J.A. The state fought the petition and lost, and continued its fight on appeal. Per the court, though the state alleges five different errors, they all generally boil down to the same argument–that M.A. didn’t identify any particular services a CHIPS finding would provide that were not already available to her. The court rejects all five flavors of the state’s complaint and affirms the circuit court’s grant of the petition.
COA finds no error in ordering parents to pay guardian ad litem costs in CHIPS case
Vernon County DHS v. K.F. and M.F., 2018AP863, 9/26/2019, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The county filed a CHIPS petition regarding K.F. and M.F.’s four children. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the kids and ordered the county to pay the GAL’s fees, but additionally ordered that the parents reimburse the county.
CHIPS proceedings not precluded by prior JIPS proceedings
Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate.