On Point: 1. Best interests of the child

State v. K.A.B., 2020AP962, 9/1/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.A.B. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, L.B. L.B. had been with a foster family since birth, and the court found that both the continuing CHIPS and failure to assume grounds were proved.

On disposition, the court heard testimony about K.A.B.’s interactions with L.B., as well as those of K.A.B.’s mother, R.R.B. The court noted that L.B. was “a meaningful part” of both women’s lives, but ultimately found they did not have a “substantial relationship” with the child, one of the statutory disposition factors. Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c).

A.C.-E. v. I.M., 2019AP573, 4/15/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects I.M.’s request for a new TPR grounds trial.

State v. A.M., 2019AP475-476, District 1, 1/3/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is A.M.’s pro se appeal from an order terminating her parental rights to her two children. The briefs are confidential, and the court of appeals states that it had difficulty discerning her arguments.  She appears to have argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the circuit court erred in determining the best interests of her children.

State v. D.I.H., 2019AP1874, District 1, 12/27/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.I.H. challenges the order terminating the parental rights of her mother and father, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in concluding that termination was in her best interests. The court of appeals affirms.

V.A. v. M.W.P., 2019AP1098, District 2, 11/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.A. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of her child’s father, M.W.P., who pled no contest to abandonment. M.V.P. argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering termination because it failed to dismiss the proceeding or give sufficient weight to the fact that V.A.’s husband, M.A., confronted the child’s GAL about his recommendation against termination, telling the GAL he’d “have blood on his hands.” (¶¶3, 13). No erroneous exercise of discretion here, says the court of appeals.

State v. A.L.M., 2019AP1599, 2019AP1600, & 2019AP1601, District 1, 11/19/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After A.L.M. pled no contest to failing to assume parental responsibility, the circuit court terminated his parental rights. The evidence was sufficient to support that conclusion.

State v. E.F., 2019AP1559-1561, 11/12/19, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court never uttered the words “best interest of the child” at the dispositional phase of this TPR case. No matter, says the court of appeals, “magical” or “talismanic” words aren’t necessary. The trial court’s decision was “infused with articulated concern” for E.F.’s children. That’s enough. Opinion, ¶¶17-18.

Dane County v. T.R., 2019AP1336-1338, 10/10/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a confidential case, so we don’t know what the briefs argue or the record shows. However, it seems the circuit court failed to make the findings essential to its order terminating T.R.’s parental rights to her 3 children, and the court of appeals shored up the decision in  order to affirm.

Outagamie County DHHS v. R.P., 2019AP990 & 2019AP991, District 3, 10/1/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating R.P.’s parental rights, and in particular didn’t err by not considering a guardianship instead of termination.

State v. K.K.E., 2019AP115-117; 9/24/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court terminated K.K.E.’s parental rights based on the best interests of her three daughters. On appeal, K.K.E. conceded that the trial court addressed the 6 “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3). But she challenged the weight the trial court assigned to each factor. In affirming, the court of appeals explains how a trial court’s weighing of these factors is virtually unassailable on appeal.