On Point: 2. Counsel

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.

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M.M.’s consent to voluntary termination of parental rights was valid and can’t be withdrawn.

S.K. v. S.S., 2020AP277, District 3, 2/26/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not made available)

S.S. (or “Susan,” to use the court’s pseudonym) isn’t entitled to a new TPR grounds trial based on her trial attorney’s failure to object to the admission of testimony she argues was irrelevant “other-acts” evidence. Even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to object (and the court doesn’t necessarily agree that’s the case (¶16 n.4),

State v. J.T., 2020AP1151, 1/5/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

E.W. was placed in foster care shortly after birth. Her dad, J.T., was incarcerated then. He remained so a year later when the State filed a TPR petition against him on the grounds that he failed to establish a substantial relationship with E.W. and failed to exercise significant responsibility for her. According to the State, J.T. failed to attend E.W.’s medical appointments and participate in decisions about her education. He pled no contest, and the circuit court terminated his parental rights.

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.