On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

State v. J.A.N., 2023AP1108, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Z.D.S., 2023AP1109, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. S.R., 2023AP1110, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a series of appeals seemingly aimed at the discretionary decisions of an individual circuit court judge, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision to dismiss and refer these juvenile prosecutions for a DPA under a well-settled standard of review.

State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.

State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a). 

State v. M.D.B., Jr., 2023AP620, 2/6/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The State’s efforts to revive this delinquency case on appeal fail, as they are unable to persuade COA that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to comply with a statutory deadline.

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.

State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.

State v. T.H., Jr., 2023AP285, 10/3/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another juvenile waiver appeal demonstrating the power of the discretionary standard of review, COA affirms the circuit court’s order despite the potential internal inconsistencies of that ruling.

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.

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.

Manitowoc County H.S.D. v. T.H., 2022AP1631, District II, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Applying a deferential standard of review, the court of appeals rejects T.H.’s attempts to obtain CPS records he claims are essential to present a complete defense in a related criminal case.