On Point blog, page 4 of 15
TPR petitions were sufficiently pled, and COVID didn’t provide a defense to the parent’s failure to meet the conditions of return
State v. P.G., 2021AP1231, 2021AP1232, & 2021AP1233, District 1, 11/2/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
P.G.’s challenges the sufficiency of the TPR petitions against him and claims the COVID epidemic affected his ability to meet the conditions of return. His arguments are in vain.
GAL didn’t improperly argue best-interests standard at TPR trial; Zoom disposition hearing didn’t violate parent’s right to be present
La Crosse County DHS v. B.B. and E.B., 2020AP2030 & 2020AP2031, District 4, 9/30/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.B. and E.B. challenge the order terminating their parental rights, arguing that the guardian ad litem improperly invoked the children’s best interest standard during the grounds trial and that conducting the dispositional hearing via Zoom violated their due process rights. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
Court of Appeals rejects claims that trial counsel was ineffective at TPR trial
Douglas County DHHS v. D.B., 2020AP982, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. claims trial counsel at his TPR trial was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the application to his case of the amended version of the statute governing continuing CHIPS grounds; (2) failing to introduce evidence about additional visits between D.B. and his son; and (3) failing to object to testimony about his son’s negative reactions to him during certain visits. The court of appeals rejects the claims.
Consent to voluntary TPR was valid
C.W. v. M.M., 2021AP330 & 2021AP331, District 3, 7/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.M.’s consent to voluntary termination of parental rights was valid and can’t be withdrawn.
Defense win: Continuing denial of physical placement ground unconstitutional as applied in case involving indigent parent
B.W. v. S.H., 2021AP43 & 2021AP44, District 3, 6/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Under the facts of this case, terminating S.H.’s parental rights on continuing denial of physical placement grounds under § 48.415(4) violated his right to substantive due process because his indigency precluded him for seeking changes in the physical placement order.
SCOW holds 2018 amendment to TPR statute applies to 2016 case
Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2021 WI 56, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2019AP894, 6/10/21, case activity
In a 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that a 2018 amendment to the TPR statute, which imposed a more exacting timeframe for parents to preserve their parental rights, applied to a CHIPS order entered in 2016 when the statutory timeframe was more lenient. So much for the plain language of the statute and due process.
In TPR, court of appeals rejects challenges to default on grounds and exercise of discretion in disposition
State v. A.M.-C., 2021AP94 & 2021AP95, 3/30/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The state petitioned to terminate A.M.-C.’s rights to two of her children on failure-to-assume and continuing-CHIPS grounds. After being told (apparently via interpreter, as Spanish is her first language) that she had to attend all hearings, A.M.-C. moved to New York City. The circuit court rejected her request to attend by telephone, found her in default, and after prove-up, found her unfit. It later found termination of her rights to be in the children’s best interest.
Even if objectionable, testimony doesn’t merit new TPR trial
S.K. v. S.S., 2020AP277, District 3, 2/26/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not made available)
S.S. (or “Susan,” to use the court’s pseudonym) isn’t entitled to a new TPR grounds trial based on her trial attorney’s failure to object to the admission of testimony she argues was irrelevant “other-acts” evidence. Even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to object (and the court doesn’t necessarily agree that’s the case (¶16 n.4),
What circuit courts must explain before accepting plea in TPR case
State v. J.T., 2020AP1151, 1/5/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
E.W. was placed in foster care shortly after birth. Her dad, J.T., was incarcerated then. He remained so a year later when the State filed a TPR petition against him on the grounds that he failed to establish a substantial relationship with E.W. and failed to exercise significant responsibility for her. According to the State, J.T. failed to attend E.W.’s medical appointments and participate in decisions about her education. He pled no contest, and the circuit court terminated his parental rights.
Lawyer’s temporary license suspension, late review of discovery didn’t invalidate TPR orders
State v. D.S., 2019AP2230 through 2019AP2233, District 1, 8/25/30 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her children on the ground, first because her lawyer was unable to appear and represent her at a pretrial hearing because his law license was temporarily suspended, second because trial counsel didn’t obtain 400 pages of discovery until the day before the dispositional hearing. Her challenges are rejected.