On Point blog, page 3 of 8
What circuit courts must explain before accepting plea in TPR case
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.
COA finds no IAC in TPR: advice to plead to grounds was reasonable
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.
COA affirms TPR – parent’s claims fall on credibility grounds
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.
When parent “admits” grounds TPR, court can find her unfit without taking testimony
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.
No-contest plea to TPR grounds was valid
State v. T.A.D.S., 2018AP2173, District 1, 6/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.A.D.S. pleaded no-contest to the abandonment ground alleged in the petition filed to terminate his parental rights to his daughter, T.S. He argues his plea was invalid because the circuit court’s plea colloquy didn’t correctly explain the statutory standard for the disposition hearing. The court of appeals disagrees.
CoA rejects plea, ineffective assistance and new trial claims; affirms TPR order
State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.
Plea to TPR petition valid despite prior finding of incompetency
State v. R.D.S., 2017AP1771, District 1, 9/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.D.S. moved to withdraw her no-contest plea to a TPR petition, saying her plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of the cognitive disabilities for which she was found to be incompetent during the underlying CHIPS proceedings and a criminal case involving charges of abuse of her child. The circuit court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, and court of appeals affirms.
Denial of evidentiary hearing in remanded TPR wasn’t erroneous
State v. B.D.S., 2017AP1770, District 1, 8/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.D.S. filed a motion for postdisposition relief seeking to withdraw his no-contest plea to a TPR petition, alleging there was an issue about his competency to understand the proceedings. (¶9). The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Parents’ no-contest pleas to TPR grounds were valid
State v. M.A.H., 2017AP1785 & 2017AP1786, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. K.C.H., 2017AP1787 & 2017AP1788, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.H. and K.C.H. entered no-contest pleas to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petitions to terminate the parental rights to their children. They later challenged those pleas, arguing they weren’t voluntary because they were induced by a promise to allow additional visitation of the children, who were in foster care, pending a disposition hearing if they entered the pleas. Their challenge fails because there was no such promise.
Father’s killing of mother established TPR grounds
State v. F.E.L., 2017AP2489, 6/5/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
F.E.L. seeks to withdraw his no contest plea at the grounds phase of his TPR proceeding. He contends there was an insufficient factual basis for the single ground he pled to, failure to assume parental responsibility.