On Point: F. Fact-finding, Sec. 48.424

Barron County v. K.L.P., 2026AP460 & 2026AP461, 7/21/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA held that the circuit court did not lose competency to enter disposition orders in an action to terminate parental rights if it accepts a no-contest plea to the grounds for termination without hearing testimony, even if Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) requires testimony.

Pierce County Dept of Human Services v. K.D.B., 2025AP2643, 6/30/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Kevin” appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, and an order denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance at the grounds trial. He also argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in his daughter’s best interests. COA affirms.

State v. R.R.L., 2026AP956, 7/1/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Roger” contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition because, in determining that termination was in the best interest of his son, “Marcus,” the court failed to consider relevant facts regarding Marcus’s relationships with other family members even though such relationships may not have been substantial. COA affirms.

Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.

State v. J.G., III, 2025AP469-474, 5/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although J.G. levies a number of appellate attacks, COA finds his arguments uniformly unavailing and affirms.

J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.

Marquette County DHS v. J.J., 2025AP1963, 1964 & 1965, 12/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

J.J. stipulated to the existence of grounds for termination but contested disposition. He now appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to three of his children, arguing that the circuit court erred because it based its termination decision in part on his poverty. COA concludes that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms.

Portage County v. Z.D.R., 2025AP1330 & 20205AP1331, 10/2/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights to his two children, finding that summary judgment was appropriate regarding grounds to terminate because there was no factual dispute that he abandoned the children, and that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found that terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.

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.

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.