On Point blog, page 3 of 12
In a sequel to its previous decision in A.G., SCOW holds that parent is not entitled to plea withdrawal or new dispo hearing; leaves other issues open
State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 6/27/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a closely-watched TPR appeal, SCOW issues a decision that leaves many open questions regarding the vexing “burden of proof” issue that has ensnarled lower courts.
Mother’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge rejected because circuit court entered a TPR dispo order “a reasonable judge could reach”
State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.
Fact-dependent attack on discretionary TPR order fails under extremely forgiving standard of review
Winnebago County Department of Human Services v. C.R.Q., II,, 2024AP81, 4/17/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent TPR appeal, “Craig” attacks the circuit court’s discretionary ruling on multiple fronts but fails due to the imposing standard of review.
Challenges to summary judgment ruling, dispositional order fail in TPR appeal
Brown County Health and Human Services v. R.U., 2024AP45-6 4/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another fact-dependent TPR appeal, COA affirms given well-settled (and difficult to overcome) legal standards.
COA rejects multiple challenges in TPR appeal
Dane County Department of Human Services v. J.K., 2023AP1946-47, 3/28/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of J.K.’s arguments and affirms.
COA rejects father’s challenge to TPR disposition
State v. K.P., 2023AP2404-06, 3/19/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.P. (“Kevin”) challenged the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights on two grounds: (1) that his own testimony demostrated he had a substantial relationship with his three children and (2) because there was a lack of evidence concerning the childrens’ wishes. The court of appeals concludes that is is “clear” the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining that terminating Kevin’s parental rights to his children was in their best interests.
COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing
State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, 3/5/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25 case activity
In an interesting decision that seems almost guaranteed to invite review by SCOW, COA departs from the plain language of the statute and reads a burden of proof requirement into the TPR dispositional procedure.
Challenge to circuit court’s weighing of TPR factors fails
State v. S.N., 2023AP2366-67, 2/27/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sally’s” challenge to the court’s discretionary termination order fails, as the circuit court’s order was supported by evidence in the record.
Mother’s request to have children placed with grandmother rejected in TPR appeal
State v. M.M., 2023AP2093-2100, 2/22/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Challenges to circuit court disposition orders are almost never successful. This case is no exception. M.M. (“Melissa”) argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that terminating her parental rights to her eight children was in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms.
Challenge to court’s exercise of discretion at disposition rejected by COA
State v. E.M.A., 2023AP2043-45, 1/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
E.M.A.’s (“Emma’s) challenge to the court’s exercise of discretion at disposition fails and the court of appeals concludes the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Emma’s parental rights to her three children.