On Point blog, page 2 of 26
COA affirms in appeal challenging TPR plea and disposition
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. A.W., Sr., 2024AP907, District II, 10/30/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA rejects A.W., Sr.’s claims that the circuit court failed to take testimony to support the finding of unfitness when he pled no contest to grounds, and that the court’s decision to terminate his parental rights at disposition was an erroneous exercise of discretion.
Default judgment for failing to appear at TPR hearings affirmed.
Dane County v. L.D.D., 2024AP1267, District IV, 10/24/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating L.D.D.’s parental rights after it entered default judgment when she did not appear at the hearing on grounds to terminate or the disposition hearing. The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s order denying L.D.D.’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on new evidence.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.
COA rejects challenges to “abandonment” verdict in TPR involving allegations that mother withheld child’s location from father
A.M.D. v. G.R.B., Jr., 2024AP1071, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
G.R.B. (“Bartel”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights, raising a medley of challenges. Although COA acknowledges that its prior precedent sent “mixed signals” to litigants on at least one of the issues, it ultimately rejects all of G.R.B.’s arguments and affirms.
COA: Plea to grounds for TPR entered knowingly, despite circuit court misstating burden of proof that would apply at disposition.
State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.
COA: TPR defendant not misled regarding burden of proof at disposition hearing during plea colloquy
State v. N.H., 2024AP597, District I, 9/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.W. forecloses N.H’s TPR appeal that his plea was involuntary because the circuit court misled him regarding the burden of proof at the dispositional phase.
In a refreshingly straightforward statutory construction case, SCOW upholds defense TPR win
State v. R.A.M., 2024 WI 26, 6/25/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a 5-2 defense win, SCOW concludes that a statute requiring the circuit court to wait two days before proceeding to disposition after finding a parent in default means what it says.
In a sequel to its previous decision in A.G., SCOW holds that parent is not entitled to plea withdrawal or new dispo hearing; leaves other issues open
State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 6/27/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a closely-watched TPR appeal, SCOW issues a decision that leaves many open questions regarding the vexing “burden of proof” issue that has ensnarled lower courts.
Advice to admit to “reasonable effort” not structural or prejudicial error in TPR trial
Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.
Circuit court properly granted summary judgment based on failure to respond to requests for admission and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to respond
Kenosha County DC&FS v. A.G.O., 2023AP1305, 1307 & 1308, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR case involving allegations of ineffective assistance, COA affirms based on hard-to-overcome legal standards.