On Point blog, page 1 of 2
COA holds that while service was defective in TPR, court’s factual findings merit affirmance
Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.
In a refreshingly straightforward statutory construction case, SCOW upholds defense TPR win
State v. R.A.M., 2024 WI 26, 6/25/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a 5-2 defense win, SCOW concludes that a statute requiring the circuit court to wait two days before proceeding to disposition after finding a parent in default means what it says.
Parent forfeited challenges to competency and jurisdiction in TPR appeal by not objecting to defective service
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.
Parents are not entitled to an initial appearance or discovery of ADA’s emails in TPR cases
State v. D.C., 2017AP1635, 3/20/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court terminated D.C.’s parental rights to his child, A.D.C. On appeal, D.C. argued that the trial court (1) lost competency to proceed when it failed to conduct an initial appearance in the case, and (2) erred in denying his request for discovery of emails between the ADA and the Child Protective Services case manager.
Challenge to competency of TPR court waived by failure to object
State v. J.M.W., 2017AP158, District 1, 9/6/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.M.W. contends the steps in the proceedings terminating his parental rights occurred out of order and therefore the circuit court lost competency to conduct a disposition hearing. The court of appeals holds he waived a competency challenge by not raising it in the circuit court first.
Challenges to successive TPR proceeding don’t succeed
State v. K.J. & State v. A.W., 2016AP1501/1502 and 2017AP720/721, District 1, 8/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2016AP1501; 2016AP1502; 2017AP720; 2017AP721
The circuit court didn’t lose competency to terminate the parental rights of K.J. and A.W. after an initial TPR petition failed, nor did the doctrine of issue preclusion apply to the second TPR trial.
TPR – Evidence – Child’s Mental Health Problems; Prior Voluntary Termination – Harmless Error
Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity
Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.
¶15 The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,
Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits–Failure to Comply with § 48.427(1) 10-day Limit for Entering Dispositional Order
Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4, 3/29/07 (published)
Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits, Generally
Issue/Holding:1: Generally, compliance with a statutory TPR time limit is mandatory, such that non-compliance results in lost circuit court competency absent an applicable exception, ¶5, citing Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, ¶63.
Issue/Holding:2: The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of lost judicial competency for lapse of a time limit without obtaining a proper extension under § 48.315,
TPR – Self-Representation – Competency of Court – Delay in Disposition Hearing
Dane County DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, PFR filed 5/15/06
Issue/Holding: Holding the dispositional hearing beyond the 45-day time limit set by § 48.424(4) did not deprive the trial court of competency to proceed, where good cause existed for continuance under § 48.315(2), namely that the respondent’s attorney was going to be out of town during a portion of the limitation period, and the trial court expressly found good cause to schedule the hearing after counsel’s return,
Competency of Court and Time Limit, § 48.422(2) — Continuance Beyond Time Limit for Fact-Finding Hearing – Factors
State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, affirming unpublished opinion
Issue: Whether a TPR court lost competency to proceed because the fact-finding hearing was held more than 45 days after the contested plea hearing, the time limit set by § 48.422(2).
Holding: A continuance of the fact-finding hearing beyond the 45-day limit may properly be granted under § 48.315(2), as to which good cause was established on this record,