On Point blog, page 6 of 21
Evidence held sufficient to support termination of incarcerated mom’s parental rights
State v. N.H., 2021AP2035-2039, 2/22/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A trial court terminated N.H.’s parental rights to her 5 children. On appeal she argued that there was insufficient evidence to support findings that she was an unfit parent and that terminating her rights was in the best interest of her children. The court of appeals affirmed.
Evidence supported verdict finding continuing CHIPS ground at TPR trial
Douglas County DHHS v. J.S., 2021AP1123, District 3, 12/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects J.S.’s claim that the County didn’t prove it made a reasonable effort to provide her with the services she was ordered in the CHIPS proceeding to use as a condition for returning her child to her home.
TPR petitions were sufficiently pled, and COVID didn’t provide a defense to the parent’s failure to meet the conditions of return
State v. P.G., 2021AP1231, 2021AP1232, & 2021AP1233, District 1, 11/2/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
P.G.’s challenges the sufficiency of the TPR petitions against him and claims the COVID epidemic affected his ability to meet the conditions of return. His arguments are in vain.
TPR court properly considered evidence of prior TPRs
State v. S.T., 2021AP1278-1280, 10/26/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court terminated S.T.’s parental rights to three of her children after she brought one of them (a 5-month old twin) to the hospital with severe burns on his body. S.T. appealed arguing that during the grounds phase of the TPR trial the circuit court erroneously relied on irrelevant evidence–testimony regarding past CHIPS and TPR proceedings that predated the births of these three children.
Court of Appeals rejects claims that trial counsel was ineffective at TPR 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.
SCOW holds dismissal of TPR doesn’t automatically preclude malicious prosecution action
Cheyne Monroe v. Chad Chase, 2021 WI 66, 6/22/21, on certification from the court of appeals and reversing a circuit court judgment; case activity (including briefs)
One of the elements of a claim for malicious prosecution is that the baseless prior action must have terminated in favor of the party asserting malicious prosecution. The supreme court holds this element may be met even when the party accused of malicious prosecution voluntarily dismissed the allegedly baseless proceeding before it was decided on the merits.
SCOW holds 2018 amendment to TPR statute applies to 2016 case
Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2021 WI 56, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2019AP894, 6/10/21, case activity
In a 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that a 2018 amendment to the TPR statute, which imposed a more exacting timeframe for parents to preserve their parental rights, applied to a CHIPS order entered in 2016 when the statutory timeframe was more lenient. So much for the plain language of the statute and due process.
In TPR, court of appeals rejects challenges to default on grounds and exercise of discretion in disposition
State v. A.M.-C., 2021AP94 & 2021AP95, 3/30/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The state petitioned to terminate A.M.-C.’s rights to two of her children on failure-to-assume and continuing-CHIPS grounds. After being told (apparently via interpreter, as Spanish is her first language) that she had to attend all hearings, A.M.-C. moved to New York City. The circuit court rejected her request to attend by telephone, found her in default, and after prove-up, found her unfit. It later found termination of her rights to be in the children’s best interest.
No withdrawal of TPR plea where where mom failed to appear for hearing
State v. V.R., 2020AP798 & 2020799, 1/26/21, Distrct 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is an appeal from an order terminating V.R.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejected a no-merit report because the record revealed that neither defense counsel nor the circuit court had discussed the meaning of a “substantial parental relationship” with V.R. before she pled no contest to failure to assume parental responsibility. On remand, V.R moved to withdraw her no contest plea and filed an affidavit. She lost her motion and now her appeal because she did not appear at the plea withdrawal hearing.
What circuit courts must explain before accepting plea in TPR case
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.