On Point blog, page 4 of 8
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.
Challenges to TPR order rejected
State v. L.J., 2017AP1225, 2017AP1226, & 2017AP1227, District 1, 5/1/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J. challenges her no-contest plea to there being grounds to terminate her parental rights to three of her seven children. She argues the plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary and that § 48.415(6), the statute regarding failure to assume parental responsibility, is unconstitutional as applied to her. She also argues there was improper testimony at the disposition hearing. The court of appeals rejects each claim.
Court of appeals affirms TPR, rejects novel challenges to statute and request for ceritfication to SCOW
State v. C.W., 2017AP1228-1230, 5/1/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Among several interesting challenges to the termination of his parental rights, C.W. argues that he was statutorily entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his “no contest” plea was not knowing and intelligent and that SCOW should withdraw language from State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475.
Record shows that parent’s TPR plea was valid
State v. T.G., Sr., 2017AP1715, District 1, 4/10/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.G. sought to withdraw his no contest plea to the grounds alleged in a TPR petition. He argued that his mental health issues prevented him from understanding the TPR proceedings and that his lawyer failed to fully explain that a no contest plea waived the right to a jury trial. The court of appeals holds that the record of the no contest plea demonstrates T.G. understood what he was doing and the consequences of his plea.
Entire record established sufficiency of evidence to support TPR admisssion
State v. J.C., 2017AP1783, District 1, 3/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.C. pleaded no contest to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petition for termination of her parental rights. She later argued her plea wasn’t supported by sufficient evidence because, at the fact-finding hearing required under § 48.422(3) for no-contest pleas, there was no evidence the child welfare department made reasonable efforts to provide her with court-ordered services. Applying Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 207 N.W.2d 207, the court of appeals holds that even if the record of the fact-finding hearing was deficient, there was other evidence in the record to make up for it.
Admission in TPR case was valid
State v. C.S.S., 2017AP1138, 2017AP1139, 2017AP1140, & 2017AP1141, District 1, 3/6/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.S.S. entered an admission to a TPR petition alleging her four children were in continuing need of protection and services. The court of appeals rejects her argument that she should be able to withdraw that admission because the judge misinformed her about the burden of proof at the disposition phase when it said the state had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would be in the children’s best interest to terminate her parental rights.
Admission to TPR ground was valid
State v. S.N.N., 2016AP2102 & 2016AP2103, District 1, 12/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.N.N. admitted the continuing CHIPS ground that was alleged in the TPR petition regarding her two children. The court of appeals rejects her claim that her admission was not knowing and voluntary.
No withdrawal of “no contest” plea to grounds for TPR under Bangert, “manifest injustice,” “fair and just reason” standard
Dane County DHS v. S.J., 2017AP1578-1580, 10/19/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication) case activity
When an opinion starts by saying a mother answered more than 80 questions relating to her understanding of pleading “no contest” during the grounds phase of a TPR case and quotes the her lawyer as saying “she’s one of the brightest clients I’ve ever worked with,” you know her motion to withdraw her plea is doomed.
Challenge to competency of TPR court waived by failure to object
State v. J.M.W., 2017AP158, District 1, 9/6/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.M.W. contends the steps in the proceedings terminating his parental rights occurred out of order and therefore the circuit court lost competency to conduct a disposition hearing. The court of appeals holds he waived a competency challenge by not raising it in the circuit court first.