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

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.

Outagamie County v. J.M.J., 2019AP183, 6/27/19, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The parties to this TPR case agreed that they would not bring up J.M.J.’s lack of rights, or the termination of rights, to her other children. But during the trial on grounds, an expert, responding to questions from the County, referred to her son whom she had given up for adoption.  J.M.J. argued that this amounted to prosecutorial misconduct by the County.

Dane County DHS v. T.S., 2019AP415, 5/9/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase of this TPR case, T.S. challenged the circuit court’s application of  §48.415(2), the CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights. He also argued that at the disposition phase the circuit court ignored one of the “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3) and substituted in an improper factor.  He lost on both counts.

State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.

D.R. v. B.D., 2018AP1731 & 2018AP1732, District 3, 2/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.D.’s challenges to the order terminating his parental rights come up short.

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.