On Point: D. Grounds, Sec. 48.415

Racine County Human Services Department v. S.J.A., 2019AP2160 & 2161, 2/5/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

It would be interesting to see the briefs in this case, but since it’s a TPR, they’re not online. What we can see is the opinion, which shows commendable (and unfortunately uncommon) attention to detail. It’s easy to imagine a glib, slapdash affirmance of this summary judgment against the parent in a TPR; we don’t get one though. Instead we see a searching review of what was proved and what was not, and a (really all too uncommon) reversal.

Kenosha County DHS v. M.M.B., 2019AP1776 & 1777, 1/22/20, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.M.B. is the father of two children, each of whom has a serious genetic disorder that threatens normal brain growth and function. The disorder can’t be cured but it can be controlled by adherence to a ketogenic diet. Both children were adjudicated CHIPS due to M.M.B.’s asserted inability to provide for their special needs; he allegedly does not believe that they have the disorder and does not comprehend the recommended diet. He also, per the county, doesn’t respond to their emotional needs in appropriate ways.

Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. N.R.K., 2019AP1726, 12/27/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Here the court of appeals upholds the termination of a biological father’s parental rights, concluding that he failed to assume parental responsibility.

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5; case activity

J.R.’s children were placed outside the home pursuant to two CHIPS cases. During the placement, the legislature changed the 4th element for the “continuing CHIPS” ground for termination of parental rights. When the County petitioned to terminate J.R.’s rights, it proceeded under the amended statute. J.R. objected to the retroactive application of the amended statute on statutory and due process grounds.

G.K. v. S.C., 2019AP1645, 2019AP1646, & 2019AP1647, District 4, 11/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.C.’s parental rights to her three children were terminated due to continued denial of periods of physical placement under § 48.415(4) based on a family court order that denied her periods of physical placement. She argued the family court order could not be the basis for a TPR because it didn’t advise her of the conditions necessary for the children to be returned to her or for her to be granted placement or visitation. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but the statute doesn’t require the family court order to do that.

Waupaca County v. J.J., 2019AP805, 10/29/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.J. challenges the termination of his parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and lack of a factual basis for his no contest plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

State v. T.S.W., 2019AP450-451, District 1, 10/22/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court failed to hold a hearing on T.S.W.’s motion for change of physical placement of her child, J.C., before the jury trial on the grounds phase of her TPR. She argued that this violated her right to due process because if she had prevailed at the hearing, the jury would have heard evidence that J.C. had been placed in the parental home with T.S.W., rather than outside the parental home.

State v. T.L.G., 5018AP1291, 9/4/19, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.G., who is cognitively limited, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son. During the proceedings below her lawyer requested a competency evaluation; eventually the court appointed T.L.G. a guardian ad litem. T.L.G. ultimately pleaded no-contest to the asserted ground of continuing CHIPS, and her rights were terminated.

Walworth County DHS v. S.S.K., 2019AP782, 7/17/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of the Walworth County’s TPR case against S.S.K., she “admitted” the ground of continuing CHIPS; she didn’t plead “no contest.”  This distinction proved decisive to the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.S.L. 

Adams County  Health and Human Serv. Dep’t. v. D.J.S., 2019AP506, District 4, 6/20/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity

You don’t see defense wins in TPR appeals very often! In this case, D.J.S., the witnesses, the GAL, and counsel for both parties were at the Adams County Courthouse. For unknown reasons,the judge appeared by videoconference from the Marquette County Courthouse. D.J.S. objected, arguing that under §885.60(2) he had a right to be present in the same courtroom as the judge, and he won!