On Point: B. Constitutional rights

State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25).

State v. C.B. & State v. N.M.M., 2022AP906 & 966, 11/29/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.B. and N.M.M. appeal the termination of their parental rights. They challenge the method the Milwaukee Clerk of Courts used to select the venire for their trial: drawing from a pool of “reserve jurors” and selecting those whose surnames began with “G” and “H.” They further request a new trial because there were no African Americans on the panel.

State v. Q.M., 2022AP1245, District 1, 10/4/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Q.M. challenges the termination of her parental rights to J.W., arguing the circuit court erred in depriving her of the right to present evidence at the disposition hearing. The court of appeals rejects the challenge.

M.K.S. v. R.J.F., 2021AP1839, 8/16/22, District 1 (no recommended for publication); case activity

Here is a result we don’t often see: a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a TPR case. A jury found grounds to terminate “Richard’s” parental rights. Allegedly, he had failed to assume parental responsibility for his daughter, “Morgan.” On appeal, he argued that his trial counsel failed to introduce evidence to explain his lack of contact with Morgan and that he was prevented from establishing a relationship with her. The court of appeals agreed that counsel was ineffective.

State v. T.M., 2021AP1729, 8/16/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Taylor” presented three challenges to the termination of her parental rights to her son: (1) erroneous admission of a psychological examination; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to a flawed jury instruction; and (3) insufficient evidence. The court of appeals rejected all of them.

State v. S.S.M., 2022AP524 & 2022AP525, District 1, 8/2/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under § 48.415(intro.), termination of parental rights to children subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires, in addition to proof of one or more grounds for termination under subs. (1) to (10), proof of “active efforts,” as defined in § 48.028(4)(e)2., to prevent the breakup of the family as well as the unsuccess of those efforts. S.S.M., whose children are not subject to the ICWA, argues that the statute’s failure to require proof of active efforts in all TPR cases violates the right to equal protection the statute because it gives Indian parents greater protection from having their parental rights involuntarily terminated than it does non-Indian parents. The court of appeals rejects the claim.

State v. S.L.W., 2021AP1736 & 1737, 6/1/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.LW. appeals the termination of parental rights to her children. She argues her attorney failed to inform the jury of court-ordered services the Milwaukee County child-services agency didn’t provide. The court of appeals holds that if counsel performed deficiently in this regard, it didn’t affect the jury trial because the county did make a reasonable effort to provide the services, and because there was an independent ground for termination. (UPDATE: the original post said S.L.W. didn’t challenge this second ground on appeal; the comment below informs us that she did.)

Manitowoc County v. K.H., 2020AP2150 and Manitowoc County v. K.R., 2021AP90-93; 4/27/22; District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.R. appealed a December 2020 order instituting permanency plans for his 4 children. His mother also appealed one of the permanency plans. They claimed that they were denied their due process right to meaningful participation in the plan review hearing. The court of appeals gives no specifics.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. E.C., 2021AP1655, 4/20/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

While “Nina” was married to “John,” she became pregnant with “Eric’s” baby. A court found the baby to be a “child in need of protective services” and gave the standard TPR warning to Nina, but not to Eric.  Afterward, Eric established that he was the baby’s father. When the court terminated his parental rights in this case, he argued that his exclusion from the earlier CHIPS proceeding violated his right to due process and provided “good cause” for failing to establish a substantial relationship with the baby. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.

Dane County DHS v. J.F., 2021AP1868 & 2021AP1869, District 4, 1/13/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly denied J.F.’s request for a new lawyer on the morning of the first day of her TPR grounds trial.