On Point: 40. TPRs

R.G. v. S.P., 2022AP1876, District 4, 02/16/2023 (one judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.G. filed a petition to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to a non-marital child that he had not seen in over seven years. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G. pursued an appeal pro se, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 48.185 supported his petition in Dane County.

N.D. v. E.S., 2022AP1084, District 2, 01/25/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Nancy (N.D.) petitioned to terminate Ed’s (E.D.’s) parental rights on the grounds that he abandoned their daughter, Kim. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1). At trial, Ed asserted a “good cause” defense that Nancy prevented him from having contact with Kim, and in response, Nancy was allowed to testify that the reason for her interference was Ed’s  “heroin use.” Despite the fact that Nancy had no personal knowledge of Ed’s suspected heroin use, the circuit court ruled, and the court of appeals agrees, that the fact that Ed admitted to being drug tested was sufficient foundation for Nancy’s testimony. As a result, Ed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to this evidence fails.

Brown County DHHS v. T.R., 2022AP1094, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a TPR proceeding a motion for summary judgment may be filed any time before trial, as prescribed in § 48.297(1) and (2), and is not governed by the time limit for summary judgment motions prescribed in § 802.08(1).

Rusk County DHHS v. R.S., 2022AP1530, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.S. (“Ruth”) argues that at the trial on the County’s petition to terminate her parental rights, the County Department of Health and Human Services didn’t prove it made reasonable efforts to provide the services ordered in the original CHIPS dispositional order. The court of appeals rejects the claim.

State v. O.F., 2022AP1703, District 1, 01/18/2023 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ultimately, the issue addressed by the court of appeals is whether O.F. received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel was alleged to have “violated his duty of confidentiality and loyalty” to his client. O.F.’s claims were based on multiple statements made by his trial counsel that arguably disclosed confidential information to the court and painted O.F. in a bad light. The court rejects O.F.’s claim primarily because he failed to establish “any prejudice” and also rejects O.F.’s assertions that his IAC claim was structural and thus did not require a post-disposition motion or a Machner evidentiary hearing. (Opinion, ¶¶22-25).

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).

C.K. and A.K. v. K.L., 2022AP1289, District 4, 12/22/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court didn’t err in granting partial summary judgment on the termination of parental rights petition filed against K.L. by C.K. and A.K., the grandparents and guardians of K.L.’s daughter B.K., because there were no genuine issues of material facts as to whether K.L. established a good cause defense to the ground of abandonment alleged in the petition.

State v. A.H., 2022AP1454, 12/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The sole issue in this TPR appeal is whether the circuit court failed to consider the “best interests” of D.H.’s daughter. D.H. noted that the circuit court’s oral decision “wholly omits consideration of and reference to the best interest factor.” Opinion, ¶13. That argument failed because the circuit court is not required to “utter any magic words” when performing its “best interests” analysis. Opinion, ¶16 (citing State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, ¶33, 286 Wis. 2d 143, 706 N.W.2d 257).

State v. C.B. & State v. N.M.M., 2022AP906 & 966, 11/29/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.B. and N.M.M. appeal the termination of their parental rights. They challenge the method the Milwaukee Clerk of Courts used to select the venire for their trial: drawing from a pool of “reserve jurors” and selecting those whose surnames began with “G” and “H.” They further request a new trial because there were no African Americans on the panel.

L.E.H. v. R.E.M., 2022AP713-715, 11/22/11, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” and “Rebecca” had 3 children together. After their relationship ended, Rebecca struggled with addiction and was charged with a number of crimes. Luke married and successfully petitioned to terminate Rebecca’s parental rights.  Rebecca appealed the TPR arguing the circuit court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on the grounds that she abandoned her children, and (2) created the appearance of bias during the disposition hearing.