On Point: a. Effective assistance

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.

Racine County HSD v. S.M.F., 2019AP2346 & 2019AP2347, District 2, 7/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.M.F.’s challenges the order terminating her parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and that the circuit court should have granted her mistrial motion. The court of appeals affirms.

S.L.H. v. J.J.D., 2019AP1554, District 2, 3/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The lawyer representing J.J.D. (“John”) in his TPR proceeding failed to mount a sufficient defense to the summary judgment motion brought by S.L.H. (“Sarah”). But that deficient performance didn’t prejudice John. The evidence the lawyer failed to present wasn’t enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment would have been granted anyway.

Kenosha County DHS v. M.M.B., 2019AP1776 & 1777, 1/22/20, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.M.B. is the father of two children, each of whom has a serious genetic disorder that threatens normal brain growth and function. The disorder can’t be cured but it can be controlled by adherence to a ketogenic diet. Both children were adjudicated CHIPS due to M.M.B.’s asserted inability to provide for their special needs; he allegedly does not believe that they have the disorder and does not comprehend the recommended diet. He also, per the county, doesn’t respond to their emotional needs in appropriate ways.

State v. A.C.M., 2018AP2423-2424, 11/12/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.C.M.’s trial lawyer did not call her psychiatrist to testify about her mental health or her medication compliance–evidence that was important to the issue of whether she posed a safety risk to her children. The court of appeals held that even if counsel should have called the doctor, her failure to do so didn’t prejudice A.C.M.

Waupaca County v. J.J., 2019AP805, 10/29/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.J. challenges the termination of his parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and lack of a factual basis for his no contest plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.

S.D. v. A.V., 2018AP1150, District 4, 3/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.D. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of A.V., her ex-husband, after he was convicted and sent to prison for possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirms the unfitness finding but remands for a dispositional hearing.

State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?

State v. C.W., 2017AP1228-1230, 5/1/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Among several interesting challenges to the termination of his parental rights, C.W. argues that he was statutorily entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his “no contest” plea was not knowing and intelligent and that SCOW should withdraw language from State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475.