On Point: 2. Counsel

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.

Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. L.H., 2015AP1872, 3/23/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

During the fact-finding stage of L.H.’s TPR trial, counsel (1) failed to object to evidence that L.H’.s child, C.M., had bonded with his foster parents; (2) failed to object to an inaccurate 5/6ths verdict instruction; and (3) and agreed to only 3 peremptory strikes though L.H. was entitled to 4. The court of appeals nevertheless upheld the order terminating L.H.’s parental rights.

Pierce County v. C.S., 2015AP1463 & 2015AP1464, District 3, 2/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her sons, D. S. and K. S., based on their continuing need for protection or services. She raises multiple, fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and circuit court error. All her claims are rejected.

Barron County DHHS v. J.H., 2015AP1529, District 3, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.H.’s claims that her trial counsel was ineffective are rejected because trial counsel’s actions were either not deficient or not prejudicial.

State v. L.M.-N., 2014AP2405 & 2014AP2406, District 1/4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly entered a default judgment in L.M.-N.’s termination of parental rights proceeding based on her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition and, when she did finally appear, by refusing to testify.

State v. T.P., 2015AP857, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Recently enacted statutes allow a circuit court to presume that a parent in a TPR proceeding has waived the right to counsel if, after being ordered to appear in court, the parent fails to do so and the court finds that failure egregious and without a justifiable excuse. The circuit court’s application of those statutes in this case didn’t violate the parent’s due process rights.

Dane County DHS v. D.M., 2014AP2291, District 4, 7/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for arguing § 48.415(6) is unconstitutional as applied to D.M., as she fails to demonstrate that the County made it impossible for her to satisfy the conditions for return of her child, D.L.

Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.