On Point blog, page 1 of 3
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
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.
Trial court erred by failing to take testimony at TPR plea hearing, but COA affirms based on lack of prejudice
State v. I.A.A., 2023AP1723-24, 2/28/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Long story short, the court of appeals affirms the orders terminating I.A.A.’s (“Ivy’s”) parental rights despite the circuit court’s admitted failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3)’s mandate to take testimony related to grounds at Ivy’s no contest plea hearing. Because the court was able to “tease out” all the necessary elements to grounds from “other witnesses at other hearings,” the court concludes that Ivy was not prejudiced and that the error was harmless. Op., ¶33.
COA rejects kitchen sink approach in appeal of multi-child TPR
State v. T.J., 2023AP1239-1242, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a battery of legal challenges, COA swiftly and efficiently marches toward affirmance in this TPR appeal.
COA affirms TPR jury verdict based on harmless error analysis
C.T.L. v. M.L.K., 2023AP402, District III, 7/11/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
The court of appeals confronts two alleged errors stemming from M.L.K.’s TPR jury trial and affirms based on harmless error.
Termination of parental rights affirmed despite some missteps
Columbia County DHS v. K.D.K., 2022AP1835, 5/25/23, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
K.D.K. challenged an order terminating his parental rights to C.A.K. on 3 grounds: (1) the judge was not properly assigned to preside over his case; (2) the circuit court refused to give a special verdict question asking whether it had been impossible for K.D.K. to meet the conditions for return set forth in the CHIPS dispositional; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The court of appeals rejected all claims.
Defense win! COA orders new TPR trial due to erroneous exclusion of evidence
Brown County Human Services v. T.F., 2020AP793, 9/22/20, District 3 (1-judge opinion, illegible for publication); case activity
To establish grounds for terminating T.F.’s parental rights, the Department sought to prove that she had abandoned her daughter, Allie, for period of 6 months or longer. It filed a successful motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of T.F.’s communications and visits with her daughter occurring after it filed its TPR petition. The court of appeals held that the circuit court erred in excluding this evidence. It reversed and remanded the case for a new jury trial on grounds for the TPR.
Grounds phase TPR trial not tainted by “best interests” or other inadmissible evidence
A.C.-E. v. I.M., 2019AP573, 4/15/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects I.M.’s request for a new TPR grounds trial.
Defense win! Judge can’t attend TPR dispositional hearing by video over parent’s objection
Adams County Health and Human Serv. Dep’t. v. D.J.S., 2019AP506, District 4, 6/20/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity
You don’t see defense wins in TPR appeals very often! In this case, D.J.S., the witnesses, the GAL, and counsel for both parties were at the Adams County Courthouse. For unknown reasons,the judge appeared by videoconference from the Marquette County Courthouse. D.J.S. objected, arguing that under §885.60(2) he had a right to be present in the same courtroom as the judge, and he won!
Harmless error and a “reasonable reading” of the record doomed dad’s appeal from TPR order
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.
Defense win! Denying TPR defendant the right to present his case-in-chief is structural error
State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; 2/19/19; case activity (including briefs)
The State of Wisconsin petitioned the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to terminate C.L.K.’s parental rights, following which the matter went to trial in due course. After the State rested, the circuit court immediately decided that Mr. K. was an unfit parent. That is, the circuit court decided the matter before giving Mr. K. an opportunity to present his case. The State concedes this was error, but says it is susceptible to a “harmless-error” review. It is not. We hold that denying a defendant the opportunity to present his case-in-chief is a structural error, the consequence of which is an automatic new trial. Opinion, ¶1.