On Point: B. Constitutional rights

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.