On Point: 1. Admission to grounds

Crawford County v. M.W., 2025AP302, 8/14/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite concluding that M.W.’s plea colloquy was “lacking in certain respects” on the circuit court’s part, COA holds that the record supports the court’s postdisposition conclusion that M.W. knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his admission. COA also rejects M.W.’s arguments that the county failed to establish a factual basis and that trial counsel was ineffective.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. A.W., Sr., 2024AP907, District II, 10/30/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA rejects A.W., Sr.’s claims that the circuit court failed to take testimony to support the finding of unfitness when he pled no contest to grounds, and that the court’s decision to terminate his parental rights at disposition was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.

State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.

Kenosha County DCFS v. J.M.C. III, 2023AP1382, 3/13/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In affirming the termination of J.M.C.’s parental rights to his daughter, the court holds that (1) the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying J.M.C.’s request for a new attorney and (2) the circuit court’s failure to take testimony in support of J.M.C.’s no contest plea to grounds was harmless.

State v. I.A.A., 2023AP1723-24, 2/28/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Long story short, the court of appeals affirms the orders terminating I.A.A.’s (“Ivy’s”) parental rights despite the circuit court’s admitted failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3)’s mandate to take testimony related to grounds at Ivy’s no contest plea hearing. Because the court was able to “tease out” all the necessary elements to grounds from “other witnesses at other hearings,” the court concludes that Ivy was not prejudiced and that the error was harmless. Op., ¶33.

State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/24 case activity (briefs not available)

We don’t know the precise issue or issues presented, but the court of appeals’ decision suggests the state supreme court may be looking to un-fracture the fractured decision it rendered last term in State v. A.G. There, the circuit court had told a parent pleading to grounds in his TPR trial’s first phase that the state would have the burden in the second phase: that is, the state would have to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interest. Of the six justices who decided the case, four agreed there is no “burden”; rather the best-interest inquiry is the “polestar” (your guess is as good as ours on what sort of legal standard that encompasses). But these four could not agree on why the judge’s communication of this concededly incorrect standard didn’t mandate reversal; see our post for more on this.

State v. D.K., 2023AP292-293, 1/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite a novel challenge as to the integrity of his plea, COA rejects “Daniel’s” arguments and affirms in this TPR appeal.

State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.