On Point blog, page 3 of 21
Trial court erred by failing to take testimony at TPR plea hearing, but COA affirms based on lack of prejudice
State v. I.A.A., 2023AP1723-24, 2/28/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Long story short, the court of appeals affirms the orders terminating I.A.A.’s (“Ivy’s”) parental rights despite the circuit court’s admitted failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3)’s mandate to take testimony related to grounds at Ivy’s no contest plea hearing. Because the court was able to “tease out” all the necessary elements to grounds from “other witnesses at other hearings,” the court concludes that Ivy was not prejudiced and that the error was harmless. Op., ¶33.
COA rejects novel plea withdrawal claim in TPR; finds evidence sufficient dad didn’t comply with CHIPS conditions
State v. D.K., 2023AP292-293, 1/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a novel challenge as to the integrity of his plea, COA rejects “Daniel’s” arguments and affirms in this TPR appeal.
COA rejects “love and affection” defense in sad TPR case
State v. S.F., 2023AP1699, 1702-1705, 12/12/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In an all-around sad TPR appeal, S.F. (“Sabrina”) challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that grounds existed to terminate and (2) the court’s discretionary decision to terminate her parental rights to her five children. Despite the fact that neither court doubted Sabrina’s love and affection for her children, the court of appeals affirms.
COA rejects sufficiency and erroneous exercise of discretion challenges in TPR appeal
State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.
COA rejects kitchen sink approach in appeal of multi-child TPR
State v. T.J., 2023AP1239-1242, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a battery of legal challenges, COA swiftly and efficiently marches toward affirmance in this TPR appeal.
COA applies and rejects Jodie W. based challenge to “continuning denial” based TPR order
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., 2023AP1229-1232, 11/16/23, District IV (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In Kenosha Cnty. DHHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, ¶56, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, the court overturned a TPR order premised on a parent’s failure to meet “an impossible condition of return, without consideration of any other relevant facts and circumstances particular to the parent.” R.H.H. argued that he was likewise subject to an “impossible” condition of return because the dispositional order that denied him placement or visitation with his four children required him to complete sex offender treatment and domestic violence programming. The court rejects his due process-based claim, for multiple reasons, including that R.H.H., failed to introduce evidence to support his assertions that his confinement in prison or his pending criminal appeal made it “impossible” for him to meet his conditions of return. (Op., ¶21).
COA rejects challenges to grounds and dispositional phase in TPR
Jefferson County DHS v. C.T.S., 2023AP1404, 11/2/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.T.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his son, K.S. The court of appeals affirms, holding the county adduced sufficient evidence of the continuing CHIPS ground and acted within its discretion in weighing the dispositional factors.
COA rejects claim that glowing testimony about children’s likely post-TPR home during grounds phase prejudiced parent
J.S. v. J.T., 2023AP38-39, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jack” filed for termination of “Jasmine’s” parental rights to their two children. At trial, Jasmine’s counsel didn’t object when Jack’s lawyer elicited testimony from a social worker that the children “seemed to love it” at the house Jack shared with his wife, that the couple were transparent, and that they had a “great support person.” The court of appeals doesn’t decide whether this was deficient performance, instead concluding that Jasmine didn’t show she was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony against her.
Evidence sufficient to establish grounds for TPR, and court exercised discretion ordering termination
Barron County DH & HS v. J.W., 2023AP60, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.W. (“Jill”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove continuing CHIPS grounds for terminating her parental rights and the circuit court’s exercise of discretion in terminating her rights at the disposition hearing. Neither challenge succeeds.
Termination of parental rights affirmed despite some missteps
Columbia County DHS v. K.D.K., 2022AP1835, 5/25/23, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
K.D.K. challenged an order terminating his parental rights to C.A.K. on 3 grounds: (1) the judge was not properly assigned to preside over his case; (2) the circuit court refused to give a special verdict question asking whether it had been impossible for K.D.K. to meet the conditions for return set forth in the CHIPS dispositional; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The court of appeals rejected all claims.