On Point blog, page 1 of 9
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.
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.
COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing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.
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s discretionary termination order
Sheboygan County DHHS v. J.L., 2023AP1884, 1/3/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal of the circuit court’s discretionary decision to terminate a parent’s rights, COA easily rejects J.L.’s invitation to reweigh the evidence.
COA rejects challenges to grounds and dispositional phase in TPR
Jefferson County DHS v. C.T.S., 2023AP1404, 11/2/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.T.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his son, K.S. The court of appeals affirms, holding the county adduced sufficient evidence of the continuing CHIPS ground and acted within its discretion in weighing the dispositional factors.
COA affirms TPR, rejects father’s “love of his children” argument
State v. R.T., 2023AP1095 & 2023AP1096, District I, 9/12/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
R.T. (“Richard”) pled no contest to grounds but disputed whether his parental rights should be terminated at disposition. Specifically, Richard argued that “there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated.” The court of appeals disagrees, noting “there was ample support in the record for the court’s decision.” (Op., ¶15).
Circuit court properly exercised discretion when it entered an individualized order terminating parental rights of one parent
State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.
Dad’s criminal record appropriately admitted into evidence during grounds phase of TPR
State v. B.L., 2023AP8, 4/11/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Barry” appealed an order terminating his parental rights to his 4 1/2-year-old daughter, Alice. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting his criminal history during the grounds phase and erred in finding that it was in Alice’s best interest to terminate his rights. He lost on both issues.
Defense Win! Father entitled to evidentiary hearing on TPR plea withdrawal claim
State v. N.H., 2022AP1945, District 1, 03/14/2023, (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication) case activity
This case presents a relatively straightforward application of how Bangert applies to termination of parental rights pleas. As noted by the decision, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering a more nuanced version of the issue in State v. A.G. In Nico’s (N.H.) case, the court of appeals again holds that a circuit court’s incorrect explanation of the applicable statutory standard at disposition entitles the parent to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert to determine whether the state can prove the parent’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Opinion, ¶1.
Defense win! TPR reversed due to errors in plea colloquy and disposition
State v. Y.P.V., 2022AP1935-36, 3/21/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals reversed and remanded this TPR for two reasons. First, the mom made a prima facie case that her “no contest” plea to grounds was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, during the plea colloquy, the circuit court misstated the law that would apply during the disposition. Then, at the disposition phase, the circuit court failed to apply the proper standard of law and misstated an important fact.