On Point: D. Grounds, Sec. 48.415

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Barron County DHS v. M.S., 2020AP1257, District 3, 12/17/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If we were quarantining in Vegas, we’d bet this case is heading to SCOW.  The briefs are confidential but the main issues appear to be: whether the summary judgment deadline in §802.08(1) governs TPR cases; whether a court may extend that deadline for good cause; and how those rules apply to the facts of this case. The COA sows confusion by stating that it has conducted “independent research” suggesting that, despite SCOW precedent and the parties’ agreement, §802.08(1) doesn’t actually apply. It then applies §802.08(1).

Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, review of a published opinion granted 10/21/20, case activity.

When the court orders a child in need of protection or services (“CHIPS”) placed outside the family home, a parent’s rights may be terminated if he or she fails to meet the conditions for the child’s return in the timeframe set out by statute. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). In April 2018, the legislature shortened this timeframe. Under either version, the CHIPS order placing the child outside the home must include “notice” of “any grounds for termination of parental rights[.]” Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and
48.356.

Issues for Review:

Whether as a matter of statutory construction the new, shorter timeframe begins with the initial CHIPS order, even if it predates the change in the statute and thus does not include notice of the shorter timeframe.

Whether starting the shorter timeframe with a CHIPS order that predates the statutory change violates a parent’s due process rights.

Racine County DHS v. W.L.J., 2020AP197-198, October 14, 2020, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Good news for defense lawyers in TPR cases. The court of appeals means business. This is the third time in less than a year that it has reversed a termination of parental rights order due to a circuit court error on the question of whether a parent “abandoned” his or her child.

State v. D.Q., 2020AP1109, 9/22/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.Q. fathered a child, K.C., with a woman here called N.E.C. D.Q. wasn’t involved with K.C. for three years after her birth; he had reason to suspect he was the father but did not seek to confirm this by testing. During that time, K.C. was taken from N.E.C.’s home for various intervals via CHIPS proceeding. N.E.C. also became involved with another man who played a substantial part in caring for K.C.