On Point: I. Appeal

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.

Jefferson County Department of Human Services v. J.V., 2015AP2622, 2623, & 2624, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

J.V. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three younger children, arguing the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that she had succeeded in having her eldest child returned to her.

Sheboygan County DHHS v. Phillip L., 2014AP780, District 2, 9/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

When Phillip entered his no-contest plea at the fact-finding stage of his termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding, the circuit court didn’t take sworn testimony to support the TPR petition, as required by § 48.422(3). Because Phillip doesn’t allege the error resulted in any lack of understanding as to the plea he entered, he is not entitled to withdraw his plea.

State v. Johnnie J., 2014AP144 & 2014AP145, District 1, 8/21/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP144; 2014AP145

Assuming trial counsel should have objected to certain expert opinion evidence and hearsay evidence about Johnnie’s behavior, the failure to do so didn’t prejudice Johnnie because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdicts on one of the two grounds for terminating her parental rights.

Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2014AP398 & 2014AP399, District 4, 7/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP398; 2014AP399

Mable K. is not entitled to a new grounds trial based on two alleged evidentiary errors—the admission of evidence about her lack of contact with her children after the period of alleged abandonment, and the admission of evidence of specific instances of her prior untruthful conduct—because there was overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.

Mareza L. v. Kim M.P., 2013AP1382, District 1, 4/1/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The plain language of § 48.46(2) limits the time for any motion to reopen a judgment terminating parental rights, regardless of the grounds for the motion. Thus, even though Mareza now claims her voluntary termination was not, in fact, voluntary, her failure to bring a motion to reopen the judgment within the statute’s time limits means the circuit court properly denied the motion.

Dane County DHS v. Nancy M., 2013AP1886 & 2013AP1887, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1886; 2013AP1887

During the first day of a fact-finding hearing to the court to determine whether there were grounds to terminate Nancy’s parental rights, the trial court admitted evidence about Nancy’s bonding with her two children. Nancy objected, and the County and GAL agreed the line of questioning was not relevant to the grounds phase of the TPR proceeding,

Barron County DH&HS v. Tara H., 2013AP2250, District 3, 12/27/13, unpublished; case activity

This is Tara H.’s 2nd trip to the court of appeals regarding this TPR.  The first time she won a new dispositional hearing.  At the start of that 2nd dispositional hearing, Tara’s counsel asked the trial court about the relevant time period for determining whether termination of her parental rights was in her son’s best interests. 

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J.W., 2013 WI App 102; consolidated case activity: 2012AP2387; 2012AP2388 

The County petitioned to terminate Roberta’s parental rights in 2007 on the grounds her children were in continuing need of protection and services. After a jury trial and dispositional hearing her rights were terminated, but on appeal the termination order was reversed and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. (¶4).

Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83; case activity

David G.’s parental rights were terminated in a proceeding commenced by the child’s mother. He filed a timely notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief, but his appointed appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal before the deadline. (¶3). That deadline cannot be extended because the legislature has decreed that the time for filing an appeal in a TPR case may not be enlarged when the petition was filed by someone other than “a representative of the public.”