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

State v. R.H., 2018AP1827, District 1, 12/4/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The standard of review doomed this appeal, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that R.H. failed to assume parental responsibility during the grounds phase of a TPR.

State v. T.W., 2018AP967 & 2018AP968, District 1, 8/21/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the trial on the petition to terminate T.W.’s parental rights, the GAL argued in closing that the jury should consider the interests of the children. T.W.’s lawyer didn’t object, but the court of appeals holds that failure wasn’t prejudicial and so rejects T.W.’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective.

State v. A.E., 2017AP1773 & 2017AP1774, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is the third TPR opinion in a week addressing challenges to the denial of a postjudgment fact-finding hearing under § 809.107(6)(am) and a constitutional challenge to the application of the failure to assume parental responsibility standard to a parent whose children have been removed from the home under a CHIPS order. As with the other two cases, the court of appeals rejects the challenges.

State v. L.J., 2017AP1225, 2017AP1226, & 2017AP1227, District 1, 5/1/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.J. challenges her no-contest plea to there being grounds to terminate her parental rights to three of her seven children. She argues the plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary and that § 48.415(6), the statute regarding failure to assume parental responsibility, is unconstitutional as applied to her. She also argues there was improper testimony at the disposition hearing. The court of appeals rejects each claim.

State v. S.S., 2017AP2097 & 2098, 4/17/18, District 1 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two boys. She argues the trial court misapplied the six statutory factors in deciding termination was in the children’s best interest, and also that her counsel was ineffective in various respects. The court of appeals rejects all her arguments.

State v. J.C., 2017AP1783, District 1, 3/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.C. pleaded no contest to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petition for termination of her parental rights. She later argued her plea wasn’t supported by sufficient evidence because, at the fact-finding hearing required under § 48.422(3) for no-contest pleas, there was no evidence the child welfare department made reasonable efforts to provide her with court-ordered services. Applying Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 207 N.W.2d 207, the court of appeals holds that even if the record of the fact-finding hearing was deficient, there was other evidence in the record to make up for it.

State v. D.C., 2017AP1635, 3/20/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court terminated D.C.’s parental rights to his child, A.D.C.  On appeal, D.C. argued that the trial court (1) lost competency to proceed when it failed to conduct an initial appearance in the case, and (2) erred in denying his request for discovery of emails between the ADA and the Child Protective Services case manager.

State v. M.D.W., 2017AP1945 & 1946, 1/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.D.W. appeals only the disposition in the TPR of her two children. She argues that the court erred in its consideration of the statutory factors. The court of appeals disagrees.

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.