On Point: B. Constitutional rights

State v. D.M.S.W., Sr., 2018AP124-125, 4/3/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶9 We conclude that D.M.W., Sr. waived his right to appellate review of the circuit court’s decision to sua sponte sever the parents’ hearings. Prior to the fact finding hearings, the circuit court informed D.M.W., Sr. that it would sever the fact finding hearings because the parents had a history of domestic abuse and the court did not find it appropriate to conduct fact finding simultaneously. D.M.W., Sr., pro se at the time, did not object. The court also explained its decision to standby counsel and asked counsel to explain the severance issue to D.M.W., Sr. The court informed the parties that they would have an opportunity to address any concerns pertaining to severance. D.M.W., Sr. did not raise any concerns as to this issue. Nor did counsel raise any objections to the severance of the parents’ disposition hearings after the court explained the basis for its decision. . . .It is well established law that an issue not raised in the circuit court is deemed waived for appellate review. See State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 457, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988) . . .

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity
Issues:

1. Where, during the grounds phase of a TPR trial, the circuit court errs by directing a verdict in favor of the State without giving the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, has the court committed structural error, or is the error subject to a harmless error analysis?

2. If the error in this case is not structural, then was it harmless?

State v. J.W., 2017AP689-690, 2/27/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.W. appealed a circuit court order terminating her parental rights to her 2 children and argued that (1) her trial lawyer misadvised her to enter a no-contest plea to grounds for termination and didn’t try hard to find a relative to place her children with, and (2) she did not knowingly agree to adjourn proceedings to work on conditions for return of her children–conditions that were impossible to meet.

State v. L.M.O., 2017AP1814, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.M.O. argues that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his child D.A.M. He also argues the court’s findings violated his due process rights because they were based on D.A.M.’s out-of-home placement and L.M.O.’s subsequent lack of contact with D.A.M. while a no-contact order was in effect. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.

Kenosha County DHS v. V.J.G., 2017AP1150 & 2017AP1151, District 2, 12/27/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.J.G.’s failed to appear at the pretrial and grounds trial in the TPR proceedings regarding his children. The circuit court then discharged V.J.G.’s lawyer, set a new evidentiary and dispostional hearing, and terminated V.J.G.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejects V.J.G.’s challenges to  § 48.23(2)(b)3., the statute on which the court based its actions.

State v. D.C., 2016AP2229-2230, District 1, 11/30/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of her TPR proceeding, D.C.’s lawyer asked the trial court to: (1) instruct the jury that she was prohibited from having visitation with her children for a period of time, and (2) give curative instructions that it was impossible for her to perform a condition for return of her kids and to assume parental responsibility due to her incarceration.  The court planned to rule on these requests just before trial, but, oops, that did not happen.

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1413 & 2017AP1414, District 1, 10/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/14/18, reversed, 2019 WI 14; case activity

The circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the state during the grounds phase of the TPR proceedings against C.L.K. without allowing him the opportunity to present evidence. The court of appeals agrees this was error, but holds the error was harmless.

M.R.B. v. S.S., 2017AP1217-1219, 10/5/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This slim opinion delivers hard blows to a father resisting the termination of his parental rights. They concern circuit court competency, a request for a continuance, and the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether termination was in the best interests of his children. The court of appeals’ reasoning on the last point supplies fodder for a petition for review.

Dane County DHS v. N.C., 2017AP788, District 4, 9/21/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

N.C. filed a postdisposition motion challenging the circuit court’s termination of her parental rights to M.M. She argued, among other things, that her trial lawyer was ineffective in failing to have the termination order entered as voluntary, rather than involuntary.