On Point: B. Constitutional rights

State v. M.G., 2016AP1197, District 1, 7/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.G. moved to withdraw his no contest plea to the petition to terminate his parental rights based on CHIPS grounds. He alleged the plea colloquy was deficient regarding his waiver of the right to trial because his lawyer and the judge referred to his having a “second” trial regarding disposition, and that he was confused by these statements. (¶15). The court of appeals finds no deficiency in the plea colloquy and therefore no basis for plea withdrawal.

State v. D.W., 2016AP1827, 4/11/17, District 1,(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The briefs in this TPR case are confidential, so we only know what the court of appeals’ opinion tells us about the case. D.W. apparently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his trial lawyer’s failure to call witnesses and failure to move to have his son’s (A.W.’s) placement changed to a family member. He also argued that his plea was defective. The court of appeals decision is long on facts, short on law, and essentially rubber stamps the Machner court’s findings without analysis.

Barron County DHHS v. C.K., 2015AP1378, 2015AP1379 & 2015AP1380, District 3, 4/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.K.’s argues she should get a new TPR trial because the circuit court erred by deciding an element of the grounds allegations without getting her personal waiver of the right to have the jury decide the element and by admitting evidence about drug activity at her home. The court of appeals rejects her claims.

Kenosha County DHS v. C.D.K., 2015AP2179, 3/30/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.D.K. entered a plea to grounds for termination of her parental rights, and eventually, they were terminated. She claims on appeal that her trial counsel failed to advise her competently about the decision to admit grounds, and that she did not understand certain information, rendering her admission not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

State v. A.W., 2016AP121 through 125, 12/8/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

When A.W. did not appear for her pretrial and was not reachable by phone, the court entered a default finding as to grounds for a TPR. She moved to vacate that finding, but then withdrew her motion. On appeal, she argued that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for advising her to withdraw the motion to vacate, and (2) the circuit court should have vacated the default so that she could address false information admitted in her case. The court of appeals refused to address the 2nd argument for reasons that penalized A.W. for mistakes her appellate lawyer allegedly made.

Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both.

State v. J.B., 2016AP483, 484 & 485, 10/4/2016, District 1 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

2013 Wis. Act 337 created Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3., which permits a TPR court in some circumstances to find that a parent who has defaulted as to grounds by failing to appear has also waived his or her right to counsel. The statute then imposes a two-day waiting period before the court proceeds to disposition. But what if the court finds a parent in default but does not find counsel waived?

State v. A.L., 2015AP858 through 2015AP861, District 1, 8/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.L. challenges her admissions that there were grounds to terminate her parental rights to her four children. The court of appeals holds her admissions were knowing and voluntary. The court also holds that calling A.L. as a witness at the trial of the father of one of the children without her lawyer being present doesn’t require reversal of her termination orders.

State v. V.A., 2015AP1614, 7/19/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.A. presented many issues on appeal, and the court rejected all of them. The most interesting ones concern collateral attacks on CHIPS orders, competency, and whether Wisconsin’s “failure to assume parental responsibility” statute is unconstitutional as applied to V.A.

State v. C.A.P., 2016AP824, District 1, 7/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While § 48.427(1) gives a parent the right to present evidence and be heard at a dispositional hearing, in this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding two of C.A.P.’s witnesses and denying her request to recall a witness who testified earlier.