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

Dane County DHS v. S.M., 2023AP607, 6/8/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).

In an appeal challenging the circuit court’s decision to terminate S.M.’s parental rights, the court of appeals concludes the court did not need to receive “direct evidence” from the proposed adoptive parents before exercising its discretion and entering a termination order.

State of Wisconsin v. M.S.H., 2023AP692, District I, 8/1/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

A parent’s non-cooperation with an involuntary TPR leads to a default judgment and, despite some compelling arguments, COA rejects her invitation to reweigh the dispositional evidence and reverse the order terminating her parental rights.

State v. M.H., 2023AP732, District I, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

M.H. raises two challenges to a circuit court order terminating her parental rights. Under an exceedingly deferential standard of review, both claims fail.

State of Wisconsin v. J.L.A., 2023AP424, District I, 6/27/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In a TPR appeal with a typically tragic fact pattern, the court of appeals defers to the circuit court’s decision to terminate “Julia’s” parental rights.

Barron County DH & HS v. J.W., 2023AP60, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.W. (“Jill”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove continuing CHIPS grounds for terminating her parental rights and the circuit court’s exercise of discretion in terminating her rights at the disposition hearing. Neither challenge succeeds.

Brown County DH & HS v. T.H., 2022AP2168, 2022AP2169, 2022AP2170, & 2022AP2171, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 2022AP2168, with links to other consolidated cases)

T.H. (“Terese”) argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating her rights to her four children based on continuing denial of physical placement or visitation grounds, § 48.415(4), because it failed to account sufficiently for, and give appropriate weight to, her positive change and the progress she made in meeting court-ordered conditions for reunification. The court of appeals disagrees, finding the circuit court analyzed all the dispositional factors for each child, employed a rational thought process, and weighed the important factors that were supported by the record.

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.

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).

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.