On Point: D. Grounds, Sec. 48.415

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brown County Department of Human Services v. S.K., 2023 WI App 27; case activity

A court has grounds to terminate parental rights under §48.415(9m) when the parent commits a “serious felony against a child.” Here, the circuit court found that grounds existed to terminate Stephanie’s parental rights to Robert because she had been convicted of  child neglect resulting in death under but “as a party to the crime.” In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals reversed, but it rejected Stephanie’s argument that an “as a party to the crime” conviction can never qualify as a “serious felony.”

State v. B.L., 2023AP8, 4/11/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Barry” appealed an order terminating his parental rights to his 4 1/2-year-old daughter, Alice. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting his criminal history during the grounds phase and erred in finding that it was in Alice’s best interest to terminate his rights. He lost on both issues.

Kenosha County v. A.C.S., 2022AP1821-1825, 2/15/23, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Here’s a fact pattern one hopes doesn’t come up too often. The county sought the termination of “Anna’s” parental rights to five children. It then moved for summary judgment on the grounds that she’d been convicted of a serious felony related to the death of another child. A hearing was set, but Anna’s counsel informed the court she’d be in trial in a homicide case. Expecting an adjournment–which both trial counsel and the court of appeals note is “common practice” in such a situation–the attorney told Anna the hearing would be put off. Counsel’s homicide trial then unexpectedly ended early, though she still had work to do to wrap it up. The TPR court apparently heard through the grapevine that the homicide trial was over. Without any successful contact–or much apparent effort to contact–Anna or her lawyer, the court held the scheduled hearing ex parte and, at the county’s request, granted summary judgment. Later, over Anna and her counsel’s protestations, the court terminated her rights.

Portage County DH & HS v. C.S., 2022AP1090, District 4, 02/23/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

In what appears to be a first, the court of appeals addresses a grant of partial summary judgment against a parent specifically related to whether the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services pursuant to a CHIPS order. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). One caveat being that the issue arises within the context of a postdisposition claim of ineffective assistance after trial counsel failed to file any response or affidavit opposing the county’s motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, the court affirms the summary judgment order and holds that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services to C.S. that would have assisted him in meeting the conditions of return. (Opinion, ¶35).