On Point: 1. Admission to grounds

State v. M.G., 2016AP1197, District 1, 7/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.G. moved to withdraw his no contest plea to the petition to terminate his parental rights based on CHIPS grounds. He alleged the plea colloquy was deficient regarding his waiver of the right to trial because his lawyer and the judge referred to his having a “second” trial regarding disposition, and that he was confused by these statements. (¶15). The court of appeals finds no deficiency in the plea colloquy and therefore no basis for plea withdrawal.

Kenosha County DHS v. C.D.K., 2015AP2179, 3/30/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.D.K. entered a plea to grounds for termination of her parental rights, and eventually, they were terminated. She claims on appeal that her trial counsel failed to advise her competently about the decision to admit grounds, and that she did not understand certain information, rendering her admission not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

State v. D.T., 2016AP1488, 2/21/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

D.T. sought to withdraw her stipulation that the court had grounds to terminate her parental rights. She said the court made conflicting statements during its colloquy with her, such as  “it’s never too late to meet the conditions of return.” The court of appeals noted that the circuit court later clarified this remark by stressing that the focus of the subsequent dispositional hearing would be on the child’s best interests. 

State v. P.T., 2016AP1460, 1/24/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.T. challenged a circuit court decision terminating his parental rights to his son on 2 grounds: (1) his stipulation to ground for termination was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary under Bangert, and (2) the postdisposition court should not have reviewed the transcript of the stipulation colloquy when deciding issue (1). He lost on both counts.

State v. L. H.-H., 2016AP917, 1/18/17, District 1 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H.H. seeks to withdraw his plea to the single T.P.R. ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. He contends he did not understand that a plea would result in a finding that he was an unfit parent; the court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s finding that he did.

State v. D.B., 2016AP440-441; 8/30/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. contends that his no contest plea as to the grounds for TPR was not knowing and intelligent because he did not understand the direct consequences of it–that is, that the court could order termination at the end of the disposition hearing. He thought the court would offer him treatment or parenting classes. D.B. lost on appeal based on the plea colloquy and the testimony of his attorney.

State v. A.L., 2015AP858 through 2015AP861, District 1, 8/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.L. challenges her admissions that there were grounds to terminate her parental rights to her four children. The court of appeals holds her admissions were knowing and voluntary. The court also holds that calling A.L. as a witness at the trial of the father of one of the children without her lawyer being present doesn’t require reversal of her termination orders.

State v. V.A., 2015AP1614, 7/19/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.A. presented many issues on appeal, and the court rejected all of them. The most interesting ones concern collateral attacks on CHIPS orders, competency, and whether Wisconsin’s “failure to assume parental responsibility” statute is unconstitutional as applied to V.A.

State v. A.M.B., 2015AP1618, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Andy was incarcerated when his daughter Catie was born and he remained in custody throughout the subsequent CHIPS and TPR proceedings. He ultimately admitted to the continuing CHIPS ground for termination of his parental rights, but now claims his admission was invalid because he was not aware that, under Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, incarceration alone cannot be grounds to terminate parental rights. The court of appeals finds no flaws in his admission.

State v. K.G., 2015AP245, District 1, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.G.’s stipulation to the failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground alleged in the TPR petition was valid even though K.G.’s later statements during the disposition hearing suggest he misunderstood what the state would have to prove to establish that ground for termination.