On Point: 1. Best interests of the child

State v. Kamille M., 2014AP2911, District 1, 6/26/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective at Kamille M.’s TPR grounds trial for failing to object to hearsay and to the state’s veiled reference to the best interests of the child during closing arguments.

Ozaukee County DHS v. J.R. and S.R., 2804-2809, 6/3/15, District 2 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket

Sec. 48.21(7) allows the circuit court to dismiss or informally dispose of a CHIPS petition, if doing so would be in the best interests of the child and the public. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of several CHIPS petitions in this case because the children at issue were not in custody. The statute, said the court of appeals, applies only to children who are in custody.

State v. Jevon S.  Appeal Nos. 2014AP1426 & 2014AP1427; State v. Latoya M., Appeal Nos. 2014AP1424 & 2014AP1425, District 1, 9/16/14 (one-judge opinions, ineligible for publication); (case activity for Jevon S.; case activity for Latoya M.)

Jevon S. and Latoya M. appealed orders terminating their parental rights. Neither contested the grounds for termination, but at their joint dispositional hearing they both wanted their two children removed from their separate foster homes and placed with Jevon’s mother. The circuit court ruled against them, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Dwayne F., Jr., 2014AP595, District 1, 6/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the best interests of Dwayne F.’s daughter would be served by a guardianship with the Child Welfare Bureau for adoption by her foster family, instead of placement with Dwayne F.’s father.

Jessica G. and Joshua G. v. Alicia L., 2013AP1843, District 2, 11/27/13 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Issue: Whether Alicia’s L’s consent to the termination of her parental rights was voluntary.

¶6 The circuit court may accept a parent’s voluntary consent to TPR only after questioning the parent and determining that the consent is voluntary and informed. Wis. Stat. § 48.41(2)(a). In making its determination,

State v. Samantha S., 2013AP1503 & 2013AP1504, District 1, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1503; 2013AP1504

During closing arguments at the fact-finding hearing the guardian ad litem referred to Samantha’s failure to keep visitation appointments and said this failure confused the children, who as a consequence were becoming attached to the foster caregivers. (¶2). The court holds this statement did not amount to an improper “golden rule”

State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶11      Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s best interest.  Effectually, Robert argues that the trial court did not properly consider the factors set forth in Wis.

State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:

¶30      Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance.  She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she:  (1) is still on probation;

State v. Marquis O., 2011AP2642, District 1, 2/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquis O.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Grounds for terminating parental rights upheld, against argument that Bureau of Child Welfare didn’t make reasonable effort to provide services for Marquis O. to meet conditions for child’s return to him.

¶5        The termination of Marquis O.’s parental rights to Mariyana was based on the child’s having,

Barron County v. Tara H., 2012AP2390, District 3, 1/15/13

Court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

TPR — Exercise of discretion in determining disposition

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to consider one of the six factors under § 48.426(3)–specifically, whether the child had a substantial relationship with Tara or other family members, and whether it would be harmful to sever those relationships;