On Point blog, page 2 of 5
COA affirms TPR order and holds that claimed structural error requires post-disposition motion and Machner hearing
State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25).
COA upholds TPR default judgment, unfitness finding, and termination
State v. D.T., 2022AP909, 8/23/22, District 1 (oen-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.T. showed up late for his Zoom TPR trial. It had been set for 9:00; D.T. appeared at 11:00 and said he was having eye trouble that kept him from logging in. The circuit court defaulted him and declined to vacate that default. The court of appeals affirms, noting that D.T. had missed other hearings.
COA affirms default in TPR, violates rules of appellate procedure
Rock County Human. Servs. v. A.P., Appeal nos. 2022AP248-249; 7/14/22, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is one more in a long line of appellate decisions affirming a default finding of grounds for terminating a parent’s rights without a finding that the parent had behaved egregiously as required by Dane Cnty. DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶71, 346 Wis. 2d 396, 828 N.W.2d 198. The difference here is that the court of appeals also openly disregards (or perhaps is unfamiliar with?) the rules of appellate procedure.
The redefinition of “egregious” in TPR cases continues
Dane County DHS v. A.D., 2022AP76 & 2022AP77, District 4, 3/31/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Another case showing that in TPR proceedings, “egregious” conduct is coming to mean “missing one hearing.”
TPR default judgment challenge rejected
State v. L.M., 2021AP970, District 1, 9/8/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying L.M.’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against her in this TPR case.
Missing one court date justified default TPR judgment
State v. M.R.K., 2021AP141, District 1, 6/22/21 (one-judge decision; not recommended for publication); case activity
The Latin word grex means “flock,” “herd,” or “group,” and is the root of several English words. Gregarious originally meant “tending to live in a flock, herd, or community rather than alone” but has become a synonym for “sociable.” Egregious literally meant “out of the herd” in Latin — something that stands apart. Its first meaning in English was consequently “outstanding” or “remarkable for good quality,” but over time that changed to become “very bad and easily noticed” or “flagrant.”
Merriam-Webster’s Words at Play. See also Sentry Ins. v. Davis, 2001 WI App 203, ¶21 n.8, 247 Wis. 2d 501, 634 N.W.2d 553 (“Egregious” is “extraordinary in some bad way, glaring, flagrant[.]” (citation omitted)). In Wisconsin TPR cases, it means “missing a single court date.”
In TPR, court of appeals rejects challenges to default on grounds and exercise of discretion in disposition
State v. A.M.-C., 2021AP94 & 2021AP95, 3/30/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The state petitioned to terminate A.M.-C.’s rights to two of her children on failure-to-assume and continuing-CHIPS grounds. After being told (apparently via interpreter, as Spanish is her first language) that she had to attend all hearings, A.M.-C. moved to New York City. The circuit court rejected her request to attend by telephone, found her in default, and after prove-up, found her unfit. It later found termination of her rights to be in the children’s best interest.
No error in entering default judgment in TPR based on parent’s conduct
State v. L.C., 2020AP796, District 1, 7/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Whether to grant a default judgment in a TPR proceeding as a sanction for a parent’s egregious conduct is left to the circuit court’s discretion, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in defaulting L.C.
Parent’s lies to court justified default TPR judgment
Waukesha County HHS v. S.S., 2020AP592, District 2, 6/10/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in ordering default judgment for S.S.’s egregious conduct of lying to the court to get her TPR trial adjourned.
COA affirms default judgment on grounds for termination of parental rights
State v. Z.J., 2019AP1623-1626, District 1, 11/19/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
All TPRs are sad. But this one really highlights the Catch 22 that poverty can create for a parent. Z.J., mother of 4, was struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. The State sought to terminate her parental rights for these and other reasons. But the real issue is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment against her at the grounds phase.