On Point blog, page 1 of 16
COA affirms TPR order in appeal challenging sufficiency of the state’s “reasonable efforts” and ADA compliance
State v. G.L., 2026AP865, 7/1/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Gwen” challenges the termination of her rights to her child, “Annie,” on the basis that the state presented insufficient evidence to the jury that the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) made a reasonable effort to provide her with court-ordered services and that DMCW did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COA affirms.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
COA rejects attempt to apply Cronic to TPR IAC claim and affirms
State v. V.T., 2025AP1338-40, 3/23/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an interesting ineffectiveness appeal, COA confronts clear-cut deficient performance but declines V.T.’s invitation to depart from the Strickland prejudice standard.
In fact-intensive TPR appeal, COA rejects numerous creative legal arguments and affirms
State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.
Defense win: In published decision, COA holds that jurors must agree on period of abandonment in TPR
S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.
COA: Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial on grounds to terminate parental rights.
State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.
COA affirms TPR orders, concludes that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and circuit court properly excluded evidence related to a younger child
State v. M.W., 2025AP2364 &2365 , 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to two of her children, “Liam” and “Karen,” and the order denying her motion for postdisposition relief. She argues that her trial counsel was ineffective when by failing object to multiple instances of hearsay, and her due process
rights were violated when the court ruled that she could not introduce evidence at trial that another child remained in her care. COA affirms.
COA rejects arguments that admission to grounds was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered, factual basis was insufficient, and trial counsel was ineffective in TPR appeal
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.
SCOW ends years of TPR uncertainty and clarifies there is no burden of proof applicable to a disposition hearing
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.
COA affirms TPR plea, holds circuit court not required to pause after explaining each right
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.