On Point blog, page 2 of 15
COA affirms circuit court’s refusal to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at respondent’s trial to terminate parental rights because respondent not incarcerated when conditions of return were imposed.
Fond du Lac County Dept. of Social Services v. T.P.W., Jr., 2024AP553, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision refusing to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at T.P.W.’s trial to terminate his parental rights because he was incarcerated two months after conditions for return were ordered and his incarceration was not sole basis he failed to meet conditions.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.
COA rejects challenges to TPR order and affirms
Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying TPR defendant’s request for new counsel.
Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.
Circuit court properly granted summary judgment based on failure to respond to requests for admission and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to respond
Kenosha County DC&FS v. A.G.O., 2023AP1305, 1307 & 1308, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR case involving allegations of ineffective assistance, COA affirms based on hard-to-overcome legal standards.
COA rejects multi-pronged attack on TPR orders
Jackson County Department of Human Services v. I.J.R.,, 2023AP1495-6 4/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another beefy TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of I.J.R.’s arguments and affirms.
COA rejects ineffectiveness claim and challenge to denial of request for new counsel in TPR appeal
Columbia County DH&HS v. S.A.J., 2023AP1884, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a lengthy opinion notable for its treatise-like treatment of the issues, COA rejects S.A.J.’s challenges to her TPR order.
Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W.
Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms.
COA rejects claim that glowing testimony about children’s likely post-TPR home during grounds phase prejudiced parent
J.S. v. J.T., 2023AP38-39, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jack” filed for termination of “Jasmine’s” parental rights to their two children. At trial, Jasmine’s counsel didn’t object when Jack’s lawyer elicited testimony from a social worker that the children “seemed to love it” at the house Jack shared with his wife, that the couple were transparent, and that they had a “great support person.” The court of appeals doesn’t decide whether this was deficient performance, instead concluding that Jasmine didn’t show she was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony against her.