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

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.

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.

Wood County v. P.M.P., 2022AP1815, 2/23/23, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In this appeal, P.M.P.’s sole challenge was to the circuit court’s application of the “best interest of the child” factors in §48.426(3)(a)-(f). P.M.P. conceded that the circuit court adequately considered the “substantial relationship” factor, but its analysis of the other facts was too terse. The decision required reversal under s Minguey v. Brookens, 100 Wis. 2d 681, 303 N.W.2d 581 (1981) and State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶27, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475. The court of appeals disagreed and affirmed.

Rusk County DHHS v. R.S., 2022AP1530, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.S. (“Ruth”) argues that at the trial on the County’s petition to terminate her parental rights, the County Department of Health and Human Services didn’t prove it made reasonable efforts to provide the services ordered in the original CHIPS dispositional order. The court of appeals rejects the claim.

State v. E.B., 2022AP1882, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity

This case concerns only the disposition phase of E.B.’s TPR case. She argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion with regard to the best interest of the child factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3).  Specifically, E.B. argued that the circuit court did not give her own testimony enough weight and gave too much weight to the foster mother’s testimony. However, E.B. does not argue that the circuit court failed to consider any specific factor or made clearly erroneous findings based on the evidence presented at disposition. Because circuit courts retain discretion to regarding “the weight assigned to each factor and the credibility assigned to each witness’s testimony,” the court affirms the TPR order. (Opinion, ¶15).

State v. A.H., 2022AP1454, 12/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The sole issue in this TPR appeal is whether the circuit court failed to consider the “best interests” of D.H.’s daughter. D.H. noted that the circuit court’s oral decision “wholly omits consideration of and reference to the best interest factor.” Opinion, ¶13. That argument failed because the circuit court is not required to “utter any magic words” when performing its “best interests” analysis. Opinion, ¶16 (citing State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, ¶33, 286 Wis. 2d 143, 706 N.W.2d 257).

State v. C.L., 2022AP1580-1582, 11/22/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.L. argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in finding that the termination her parental rights to her 3 kids was in their best interests under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). The court of appeals was not persuaded by her arguments that the paternal grandparents should be guardians, not an adoptive resource, for the children and that the circuit court failed to consider all of the “best interests” factors.

Portage County DH & HS v. S.Z. & C.Z., 2022AP1352-1355, 11/17/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This case is the companion of C.Z. & S.Z., decided two weeks ago. C.Z. is the father of the four children at issue; S.Z., the appellant here, is the mother. The opinion here is pretty much a remix of the opinion in the earlier case; both parents raise similar issues and the court similarly rejects them.

Portage County DH & HS v. C.Z & S.Z., 2022AP1249-1252; 11/3/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.Z. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his four children. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. D.W. Jr., 2022AP1397, 10/18/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

D.W. Jr. has along criminal history. He was incarcerated when his son, J.W., was born, and the two had never lived together. In fact, J.W. and his brother lived with a foster parent, who was also an adoptive resource for both of them. When the circuit court terminated D.W.’ Jr.’s parental rights, he argued that the court neglected to consider a dispositional alternative– the appointment of a guardian for J.W. It didn’t fly.