On Point blog, page 10 of 59
Parent’s challenges to TPR order affirmed under deferential standard of review
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.
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.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion when it entered an individualized order terminating parental rights of one parent
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.
SCOW reverses court of appeals and holds parent is unable to withdraw their plea, fails to agree on much of anything else
State v. A.G., 2023 WI 61, 6/30/23, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (briefs not available)
In a closely-watched appeal involving tricky questions regarding plea withdrawal in TPR cases, a fractured court agrees that the court of appeals got it wrong but fails to otherwise develop the law.
State sufficiently proved parent’s pleas were knowing, intelligent and voluntary despite possible misadvice in plea colloquy
State v. S.S., 2022AP1179 & 2022AP1180, District I, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal with a parent alleging a defective plea colloquy, the court of appeals finds that the State proved the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at a postdisposition hearing.
Parent forfeited challenges to competency and jurisdiction in TPR appeal by not objecting to defective service
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.
Evidence sufficient to establish grounds for TPR, and court exercised discretion ordering termination
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.
Admission of other-acts evidence at TPR grounds trial was harmless
Barron County DH & HS v. Q.B., 2023AP37, District 3, 6/13/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the trial to terminate the parental rights of Q.B. (“Quan”) on grounds of continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility, a substance abuse counselor referred to Quan having spent “quite a bit of time incarcerated over the years” before the entry of the CHIPS order. (¶¶8-9, 24). The circuit court then declined to give a cautionary instruction. Assuming the evidence was inadmissible and that a cautionary instruction was appropriate, the error was harmless.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion in terminating parental rights despite mother’s progress in meeting conditions
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.
Parent’s attack on TPR order rejected
Winnebago County DHS v. B.K.V., 2023AP310, District 2, 6/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.K.V. filed a postdisposition motion for a new trial in her termination of parental rights proceeding. The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of her motion.