On Point: 40. TPRs

State of Wisconsin v. S.L.L., 2024AP551, 8/26/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

S.L.L. failed to preserve an objection to a protective order as to the identity of the proposed adoptive resource, leading to a quick affirmance from COA.

Crawford County v. M.W., 2025AP302, 8/14/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite concluding that M.W.’s plea colloquy was “lacking in certain respects” on the circuit court’s part, COA holds that the record supports the court’s postdisposition conclusion that M.W. knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his admission. COA also rejects M.W.’s arguments that the county failed to establish a factual basis and that trial counsel was ineffective.

Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.

State v. H.C., 2025 WI 20, 6/3/25, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

In a decision that has been awaited by TPR practitioners, all seven justices affirm COA’s mandate, with five justices joining in a majority opinion which concludes there is no burden of proof applicable at a dispositional hearing.

State of Wisconsin v. F.S.-E., 2054AP10, District I, 5/20/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA rejects F.S.-E.’s claim that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. It holds that there is no requirement that the circuit court pause after explaining each right during the plea colloquy to inquire as to F.S.-E.’s understand of that particular right.

Marathon County v. S.S., 2024AP1866, 5/8/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sean” appeals orders of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his daughter, “Zoey,” and denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in four respects during the grounds trial, and that he was prejudiced by the individual and cumulative effects of counsel’s deficient performance. COA rejects Sean’s first two IAC claims and concludes that he failed to establish prejudice.

State v. T.N., 2024AP1280, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.N. appeals, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney did not object to statements she contends are inadmissible hearsay. COA assumes without deciding that the statements were hearsay and affirms the circuit court’s orders, concluding there was no prejudice to T.N.

State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.