On Point blog, page 7 of 7
TPR – Knowing Admission to Grounds, Ineffective Assistance
State v. Kenneth E., 2010AP1520, District 1, 12/7/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kenneth E.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
(The Court’s Case Access site has posted Kenneth E.’s principal and reply briefs. This is atypical; the court’s normal practice is not to post briefs, because of the confidentiality that attends TPRs. Though seemingly not barred by statute or rule, links to the briefs won’t be provided here in deference to the court’s past practice,
TPR- Ineffective Assistance – Change of Placement, Warnings; Disposition, Exercise of Discretion
State v. Jesenia R., 2009AP2906, District 1, 8/24/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
No prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure to object to violation of the change-of-placement notice requirement in § 48.357. ¶¶15-16.
The background is a bit fact-intensive. Roughly: The child (Elizabeth) had been placed with a foster family, who moved to Idaho and took Elizabeth with them,
TPR – Evidence; Hearsay; Effective assistance
Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti
TPR – Evidence
Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Chester C., 2009AP2824, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Chester C.: Dianne M. Erickson
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
Failure to demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Strickland dooms this ineffective-assistance claim that trial counsel failed to object to various hearsay statements:
¶7 Other than complaining that his trial lawyer did not object to the hearsay we have recounted,
Peter H. v. Keri H., 2009AP2487, District III, 4/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski
IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,
TPR – Right to Appearance by Counsel, Notwithstanding Parent’s Default in Failing to Personally Appear at Fact-Finding Phase
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may deny a parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding the statutory right to counsel when the parent has appeared in the proceeding but failed to personally attend a hearing in contravention of a court order and is found in default as a sanction for disobeying the court order.” (¶2)
Holding:
¶41 We do not accept the State’s position for three reasons.