On Point blog, page 1 of 27
COA affirms TPR order in appeal challenging sufficiency of the state’s “reasonable efforts” and ADA compliance
State v. G.L., 2026AP865, 7/1/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Gwen” challenges the termination of her rights to her child, “Annie,” on the basis that the state presented insufficient evidence to the jury that the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) made a reasonable effort to provide her with court-ordered services and that DMCW did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COA affirms.
Defense win: COA reverses summary judgment on continuing denial of visitation ground and orders summary judgment for parents on same ground
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. J.L.C. and M.M.C., 2026AP498 and 647, 6/25/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
JLC and MMC each appeal the circuit court order terminating their parental rights to their child, CMC, arguing that the court erred in granting Waupaca County’s motion for summary judgment on grounds. COA concludes that the ground on which SJ was granted, continuing denial of visitation, requires the county to prove that the parents received adequate notice of the conditions of resuming visitation, and the county cannot make this showing under the facts. Therefore, COA reverses the order and remands with directions that the circuit court grant partial summary judgment to both parents on the continuing denial of visitation ground.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
Defense Wins: COA reverses summary judgment at grounds phase of TPR proceeding.
Sawyer County Health & Human Services v. D.K., 2025AP2832, 3/12/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the order terminating “Daniel’s” parental rights after summary judgment was granted at the grounds phase because genuine issues of material fact exist whether the County made reasonable efforts to provide services.
Defense win: COA holds that court erroneously granted partial summary judgment in TPR
Chippewa County v. C.F., 2025AP1744, 1/21/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
C.F. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son, arguing the circuit court erred by granting the county’s motion for partial summary judgment as to grounds. COA agrees that the order denying her visitation did not give adequate notice of the conditions she needed to meet in order to be granted visitation.
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s exercise of discretion on disposition determination
Marquette County DHS v. J.J., 2025AP1963, 1964 & 1965, 12/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
J.J. stipulated to the existence of grounds for termination but contested disposition. He now appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to three of his children, arguing that the circuit court erred because it based its termination decision in part on his poverty. COA concludes that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms.
Defense Win: In TPR rife with error, COA holds that court erroneously granted default judgment and clarifies ICWA voluntary termination procedure
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Z.N., 2025AP1817, 11/7/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unpublished but citable case, COA clarifies there is no requirement that respondent appear in person for a voluntary termination of parental rights in an ICWA case and reverses the circuit court’s default finding.
COA affirms TPR order, rejects arguments premised on “substantial likelihood” question for continuing CHIPS as undeveloped and forfeited
Kenosha County v. V.L.W., 2025AP1914, 11/12/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Victor’s” arguments on appeal, which are all based on the continuing CHIPS “substantial likelihood” provision applying in his case. COA concludes that Victor did not prove this provision, which requires that the has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months, should apply.
COA affirms summary judgment on grounds to terminate parental rights and upholds discretionary decision that terminating rights in the best interests of children.
Portage County v. Z.D.R., 2025AP1330 & 20205AP1331, 10/2/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights to his two children, finding that summary judgment was appropriate regarding grounds to terminate because there was no factual dispute that he abandoned the children, and that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found that terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
Defense win: In published decision, COA holds that jurors must agree on period of abandonment in TPR
S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.