On Point: 1. Admission to grounds

State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.

State v. A.G., 2023 WI 61, 6/30/23, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)

In a closely-watched appeal involving tricky questions regarding plea withdrawal in TPR cases, a fractured court agrees that the court of appeals got it wrong but fails to otherwise develop the law.

State v. S.S., 2022AP1179 & 2022AP1180, District I, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another TPR appeal with a parent alleging a defective plea colloquy, the court of appeals finds that the State proved the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at a postdisposition hearing.

State v. N.H., 2022AP1945, District 1, 03/14/2023, (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication) case activity

This case presents a relatively straightforward application of how Bangert applies to termination of parental rights pleas. As noted by the decision, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering a more nuanced version of the issue in State v. A.G. In Nico’s (N.H.) case, the court of appeals again holds that a circuit court’s incorrect explanation of the applicable statutory standard at disposition entitles the parent to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert to determine whether the state can prove the parent’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Opinion, ¶1.

State v. Y.P.V., 2022AP1935-36, 3/21/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals reversed and remanded this TPR for two reasons. First, the mom made a prima facie case that her “no contest” plea to grounds was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, during the plea colloquy, the circuit court misstated the law that would apply during the disposition. Then, at the disposition phase, the circuit court failed to apply the proper standard of law and misstated an important fact.

State v. A.G., 2022AP652, two petitions for review of unpublished court of appeals opinions granted 10/11/22; reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity

Issues for review:

From the State’s petition: Whether A.G., the father who lost his parental rights, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of his rights.

From the GAL’s petition: Whether Bangert‘s procedure governing motions to withdraw a criminal guilty plea should apply rigidly to TPR proceedings.

Also from the GAL’s petition. Whether a parent loses his right to appeal after failing to attend a remand hearing without excuse.

State v. M.J.C., 2022AP779, District 1, 10/4/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects M.J.C. attempt to withdraw his no contest plea to the petition to terminate his parental rights to J.C.

State v. M.B., 2022AP89, District 1, 7/19/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.B. entered a no contest plea to failing to assume parental responsibility and to her daughter being in continuing need of protection or services. During the plea colloquy, the circuit court suggested she had the “same trial rights” at the dispositional phase as at the grounds phase. (¶¶3-4). This, M.B. argues, was a flaw in the colloquy because it misstated the correct statutory standard to be applied at disposition—the best interests of the child—and suggests the state had a burden it doesn’t have; thus, she should be allowed to withdraw her plea. (¶¶11, 13). The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. A.G., 2022AP652, 7/12/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petitions for review granted, 10/11/22, reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity

District 1 means business. Not long ago, it reversed an order denying A.G.’s claim that his no-contest plea to grounds for a TPR was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the circuit court neglected to explain the potential dispositions to him. It remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. There, the State simply presented a transcript showing that 10 months before the plea, the circuit court explained potential dispositions to A.G. The circuit court said the State met its burden. On appeal after remand, the court of appeals says no way!

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.