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

State v. A.S.F., 2016AP2076, and State v. V.C., Jr., 2016AP2077, both District 1, 7/11/17 (one-judge decisions ineligible for publication); case activity: A.S.F.; V.C.

In this pair of decisions addressing the termination of the parental rights of both parents of J.T.C., the court of appeals rejects the parents’ claim that it was error to allow J.T.C.’s adoptive parent to testify that she would allow contact between the child and members of his biological family if the court terminated the parents’ rights. The court also rejects V.C.’s argument that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence from A.S.F.’s trial to “prove up” the factual basis for V.C.’s no-contest plea to the petition.

State v. D.W., 2016AP1827, 4/11/17, District 1,(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The briefs in this TPR case are confidential, so we only know what the court of appeals’ opinion tells us about the case. D.W. apparently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his trial lawyer’s failure to call witnesses and failure to move to have his son’s (A.W.’s) placement changed to a family member. He also argued that his plea was defective. The court of appeals decision is long on facts, short on law, and essentially rubber stamps the Machner court’s findings without analysis.

State v. D.P.V., 2016AP2037, District 1, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court does not have the authority to stay an order terminating parental rights.

T.M.H. v. A.N.W., 2016AP1981, District 4, 12/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The biological father of J.H. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother, A.W. The circuit court granted the petition, but only after concluding it could order continued visitation between J.H. and his maternal great-grandmother, with whom J.H. had an important relationship. It turns out the circuit court did not have that authority. Because the circuit court said it “absolutely, positively” would not terminate A.W.’s rights unless it could order continued visitation by the great-grandmother, the termination order is reversed.

State v. T.R.D., 2016AP1413, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.D. challenges the circuit court’s conclusions that she was an unfit parent and that it was in the best interests of her child for T.R.D.’s parental rights to be terminated. The court of appeals rejects the challenges.

Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both.

Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest.

State v. T.L.T., 2016AP471, District 1, 8/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Five months after the circuit court terminated T.L.T.’s parental rights to E.A.T., child welfare authorities moved E.A.T. from his foster placement with V.B. to a new adoptive foster home. T.L.T. argues the termination decision rested heavily on the prospect V.B. would adopt E.A.T., so the post-disposition change in placement materially affects that decision. (¶¶2-12). She asks the court of appeals to exercise its discretionary power to reverse under § 752.35 because the real controversy was not tried and justice miscarried. (¶¶15-16). The court of appeals declines.

State v. C.A.P., 2016AP824, District 1, 7/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While § 48.427(1) gives a parent the right to present evidence and be heard at a dispositional hearing, in this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding two of C.A.P.’s witnesses and denying her request to recall a witness who testified earlier.

State v. J.M., 2016AP817 & 2016AP817, District 1, 7/6/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence introduced at the fact finding hearing was sufficient to establish both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of T.M.’s children.