On Point: 2. Admit/exclude evidence

State v. C.R.R./State v. M.R., 2015AP1771 & 2015AP1772, District 3, 4/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects various challenges to orders terminating the parental rights C.R.R. and M.R., the mother and father, respectively, of A.M.R.

Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. L.H., 2015AP1872, 3/23/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

During the fact-finding stage of L.H.’s TPR trial, counsel (1) failed to object to evidence that L.H’.s child, C.M., had bonded with his foster parents; (2) failed to object to an inaccurate 5/6ths verdict instruction; and (3) and agreed to only 3 peremptory strikes though L.H. was entitled to 4. The court of appeals nevertheless upheld the order terminating L.H.’s parental rights.

Pierce County v. C.S., 2015AP1463 & 2015AP1464, District 3, 2/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her sons, D. S. and K. S., based on their continuing need for protection or services. She raises multiple, fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and circuit court error. All her claims are rejected.

Barron County DHHS v. J.H., 2015AP1529, District 3, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.H.’s claims that her trial counsel was ineffective are rejected because trial counsel’s actions were either not deficient or not prejudicial.

La Crosse County HSD v. C.J.T., 2015AP252, District 4, 10/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The fact that the County’s attorney handling this TPR proceeding retained the GAL in the case to represent the her in an unrelated personal injury matter didn’t create a conflict of interest that required a new trial.

State v. Mary G., 2015AP55, 2015AP56, & 2015AP57, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase of the trial on a TPR petition, the circuit court properly ordered Mary G. to provide the State with notes from her mental health treatment provider and appropriately considered evidence regarding Mary’s failure to manage her medications.

Green County DHS v. Barret W.S., 2014AP1155, District 4, 8/14/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court didn’t err by allowing a child’s guardians to participate as a party in a proceeding to terminate the father’s rights to the child because, while ch. 48 does not expressly state that guardians are “parties” in a termination proceeding, pertinent statutes support allowing the guardians to participate as a party. In addition, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment against the father and didn’t err in making certain evidentiary rulings during the dispositional phase.

Manitowoc County Human Services Dep’t v.  Ralph B., 2014AP140, District 2, 7/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to terminate Ralph B.’s parental rights because Manitowoc County met its burden of proving a failure to assume parental responsibility and because trial counsel had sound strategic reasons for not pursuing various lines of defense during the grounds phase of Ralph’s trial.

Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2014AP398 & 2014AP399, District 4, 7/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP398; 2014AP399

Mable K. is not entitled to a new grounds trial based on two alleged evidentiary errors—the admission of evidence about her lack of contact with her children after the period of alleged abandonment, and the admission of evidence of specific instances of her prior untruthful conduct—because there was overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.

Wood County Human Services Dep’t v. Melanie M., 2013AP2814, 2013AP2815, & 2013AP2816, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP2814; 2013AP2815; 2013AP2816

Foster parent testimony during the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding has the potential to be prejudicial because it creates a risk the jury will reach a verdict by comparing the biological parent to the foster parent;