On Point: G. Disposition, Secs. 48.426-427

State v. H.C., 2025 WI 20, 6/3/25, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

In a decision that has been awaited by TPR practitioners, all seven justices affirm COA’s mandate, with five justices joining in a majority opinion which concludes there is no burden of proof applicable at a dispositional hearing.

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.

State v. T.H.-M., 2024AP1271-1273, District I, 10/29/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In another dense and fact-specific opinion, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the parent was unfit and rejects T.H.-M.’s argument that the circuit court improperly weighed the evidence at disposition.

Waukesha County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. M.M.M., 2024AP1622, 10/30/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a straightforward case addressing sufficiency of the evidence, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order to terminate M.M.M’s (referred to as Mary) parental rights.  The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding grounds to terminate her parental rights, and the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined terminating Mary’s parental rights to her son (referred to as Neal) was in his best interest.

State v. C.M., 2024AP1416-1418, District I, 10/15/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The parent’s challenge to the court’s discretionary termination decision goes nowhere given the standard of review.

A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.

State v. S.O., 2024AP1350, 10/8/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.O. (“Sarah”) challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “Daniel,” arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition when it failed to explicitly consider Daniel’s wishes.

State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25; case activity (including briefs)

In a seemingly inevitable grant given a flood of appeals raising an identical issue, SCOW has accepted review of this unpublished TPR decision, which held–for the first time in Wisconsin law–that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at the dispositional phase of a TPR.

E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.