On Point blog, page 1 of 15
COA affirms verdict finding grounds to terminate parental rights for failing to assume parental responsibilities.
Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.
COA rejects numerous IAC claims, affirms jury verdict in TPR appeal
Marathon County v. S.S., 2024AP1866, 5/8/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sean” appeals orders of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his daughter, “Zoey,” and denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in four respects during the grounds trial, and that he was prejudiced by the individual and cumulative effects of counsel’s deficient performance. COA rejects Sean’s first two IAC claims and concludes that he failed to establish prejudice.
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.
TPR verdict and dispositional order affirmed
State v. T.H.-M., 2024AP1271-1273, District I, 10/29/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another dense and fact-specific opinion, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the parent was unfit and rejects T.H.-M.’s argument that the circuit court improperly weighed the evidence at disposition.
COA: Evidence sufficient to affirm verdict finding grounds to terminate parental rights; cir. ct. did not erroneously exercise discretion in terminating rights.
Waukesha County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. M.M.M., 2024AP1622, 10/30/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a straightforward case addressing sufficiency of the evidence, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order to terminate M.M.M’s (referred to as Mary) parental rights. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding grounds to terminate her parental rights, and the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined terminating Mary’s parental rights to her son (referred to as Neal) was in his best interest.
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: Circuit court exercised discretion at disposition despite not explicitly considering one factor
State v. S.O., 2024AP1350, 10/8/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.O. (“Sarah”) challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “Daniel,” arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition when it failed to explicitly consider Daniel’s wishes.
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.
Mother’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge rejected because circuit court entered a TPR dispo order “a reasonable judge could reach”
State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.
COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing
State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, 3/5/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25 case activity
In an interesting decision that seems almost guaranteed to invite review by SCOW, COA departs from the plain language of the statute and reads a burden of proof requirement into the TPR dispositional procedure.