On Point: B. Constitutional rights

Kimberly A. v. Charles B., 2011AP129, District 3, 8/4/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Counsel’s strategic decision not to voir dire jurors about what they may have heard during a heated sidebar discussion, and instead to request a limiting instruction to disregard anything they may have overheard, wasn’t deficient performance, ¶12. Nor was it prejudicial, given that he “offers no evidence,

Florence County Dept. of Human Services v. Edward S., Jr., 2011AP385, District 3, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Edward S.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Counsel’s stipulation without the parent’s on-record assent to the first element of TPR grounds (child placed outside home at least 6 months under CHIPS order) didn’t deprive parent of his right to jury trial. Walworth County DHHS v.

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J. W., 2010AP2248, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity

By his overweening involvement in the trial process, evincing his prejudgment of the case and asking “countless questions of the witnesses” – to an extent that the GAL objected that “the judge was abusing his function and was not being fair to Roberta -,

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Wesley M., No. 2010AP2946, District 2, 6/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶7        A parent is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings, and the applicable standards are those which apply in criminal cases.  See A.S. v. State, 168 Wis.

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

Portage Co. HHS v. Jesus S., 2010AP2698, District 4, 2/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesus S.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

For a no-contest plea to a TPR petition to be knowing and voluntary, the parent must be notified of the direct consequences of his or her plea, including an automatic finding of parental unfitness, ¶6, citing Oneida Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs.

State v. Troy J., 2010AP670, District 1, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Troy J.: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The judge presiding over disposition-phase of a TPR wasn’t required to disqualify himself where his daughter was employed to work in the guardian ad litem office of the local agency providing GAL work under contract, given that she had no involvement in that particular case.

State v. Lorraine J. / Johnny J., 2010AP137, et al,District 1, 12/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.:  Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau

TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation

A termination order severs all parental rights, including visitation under § 48.43, ¶¶31-37.

TPR – Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation

Grant of a post-disposition motion,

Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P. S, 2010AP573, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Determination of the “best interests of the child” at TPR disposition includes consideration of various factors, including the “wishes of the child.” The TPR court need not hear directly from the child, but may instead take evidence of the child’s wishes from other sources.

Court discusses evidentiary issues that appear to be too inconsequential,

State v. Kenneth E., 2010AP1520, District 1, 12/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kenneth E.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

(The Court’s Case Access site has posted Kenneth E.’s principal and reply briefs. This is atypical; the court’s normal practice is not to post briefs, because of the confidentiality that attends TPRs.  Though seemingly not barred by statute or rule, links to the briefs won’t be provided here in deference to the court’s past practice,