On Point blog, page 3 of 16
Juvenile wins new hearing on whether stay of sex offender registration should be lifted; loses on judicial bias claim
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.
COA opts for defense-friendly reading of Marsy’s Law in published juvenile defense win!
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).
Defense Win! Court properly dismissed juvenile case with prejudice due to State’s blown deadline
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.
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.
COA holds there’s nothing wrong with sending kids to a juvenile prison that, legally speaking, shouldn’t exist
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.
COA upholds order waiving juvenile into adult court based on finding that juvenile’s treatment needs currently being met just fine in less-restrictive placement
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.
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.
Circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying criminal defendant access to juvenile records
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.
“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.