On Point: 1. Best interests of the child

State v. M.K., 2017AP1952-1953, 12/27/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The record for a termination of rights appeal is required by law to be confidential. Thus, in such a case the court of appeals must refer to the individuals involved by their initials, pseudonyms, or other appropriate designations. This rule balances the individual’s right to confidentiality with the public’s right to know how our judges are applying and developing the law. Nobody disputes the wisdom of the rule. On Point questions its application in this particular appeal.

State v. S.N.N., 2016AP2102 & 2016AP2103, District 1, 12/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.N.N. admitted the continuing CHIPS ground that was alleged in the TPR petition regarding her two children. The court of appeals rejects her claim that her admission was not knowing and voluntary.

State v. M.P., 2016AP2104 & 2016AP2105, District 1, 10/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the dispositional hearing on the petition to terminate M.P.’s parental rights to his two children the court heard evidence that the foster parents intended to allow M.P. to continue to have contact with the children if his parental rights were terminated. (¶8). The court of appeals rejects M.P.’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this evidence.

M.R.B. v. S.S., 2017AP1217-1219, 10/5/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This slim opinion delivers hard blows to a father resisting the termination of his parental rights. They concern circuit court competency, a request for a continuance, and the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether termination was in the best interests of his children. The court of appeals’ reasoning on the last point supplies fodder for a petition for review.

State v. C.L.H., 2017AP1278-1280, 9/6/17, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court terminated C.L.H.’s parental rights to her biological children, A.L.H., H.H. and M.J.H. The sole issue on appeal was whether the circuit court’s refusal to place the kids with C.H. (their maternal grandfather) and E.B. (his fiancée) amounted to an erroneous exercise of discretion.  The court of appeals said “no.”

State v. M.W., 2016AP2045 & 2046, 7/11/17, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.W. pled no contest to a continuing CHIPS ground in the initial phase of the termination of her parental rights. She argues on appeal that the court erred in hearing factual basis testimony after her plea colloquy and in finding unfitness when she did not agree with some of the factual basis presented.

State v. J.L.C., 2017AP197, 5/2/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.L.C. argued that the circuit court erroneously terminated his parental rights to his son, K.C., because J.L.C. moved to Arizona, not because J.L.C. failed to provide a safe environment.  

Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both.

Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest.

Dane County DHS v. C.N., 2016AP1472-1473, District 4, 9/29/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.N. argued that in considering the best of her children the circuit court placed too much weight on her lengthy separation from her children and not enough weight on the progress she had made toward meeting the conditions of return. Unfortunately, the standard of review–whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion–doomed her appeal.