On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. S.L.W., 2021AP1736 & 1737, 6/1/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.LW. appeals the termination of parental rights to her children. She argues her attorney failed to inform the jury of court-ordered services the Milwaukee County child-services agency didn’t provide. The court of appeals holds that if counsel performed deficiently in this regard, it didn’t affect the jury trial because the county did make a reasonable effort to provide the services, and because there was an independent ground for termination. (UPDATE: the original post said S.L.W. didn’t challenge this second ground on appeal; the comment below informs us that she did.)

State v. S.R., 2022AP293, 294 & 295, 6/1/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her children.  A jury found her unfit on two grounds: continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. She doesn’t challenge these findings on appeal; she instead attacks the circuit court’s determination that terminating her parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

State v. A.A., 2022AP311, 5/3/22. District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

T.W. was born at 26 weeks with a host of serious medical problems. At discharge, he needed 24-hour care. T.W. couldn’t meet those needs because she had her own challenges.  She pled “no contest” to continuing CHIPS during the grounds phase of her TPR case. When the court terminated her rights to T.W., she appealed arguing that it had weighed the evidence incorrectly.

Manitowoc County v. K.H., 2020AP2150 and Manitowoc County v. K.R., 2021AP90-93; 4/27/22; District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.R. appealed a December 2020 order instituting permanency plans for his 4 children. His mother also appealed one of the permanency plans. They claimed that they were denied their due process right to meaningful participation in the plan review hearing. The court of appeals gives no specifics.

State v. A.P., 2022AP95-97, 4/26/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity

Seems like we went years without a defense win in a TPR appeal. Then–just like that–we get 4 citable defense wins in 9 months. See also this win, this win, and this win! At the disposition stage in A.P.’s case, the circuit court was supposed to consider the 6 “best interests of the children” factors, but it only considered 5. The testimony on the missing factor was conflicting. Thus, the court of appeals reversed this TPR and remanded for further proceedings.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. E.C., 2021AP1655, 4/20/22, District 2; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

While “Nina” was married to “John,” she became pregnant with “Eric’s” baby. A court found the baby to be a “child in need of protective services” and gave the standard TPR warning to Nina, but not to Eric.  Afterward, Eric established that he was the baby’s father. When the court terminated his parental rights in this case, he argued that his exclusion from the earlier CHIPS proceeding violated his right to due process and provided “good cause” for failing to establish a substantial relationship with the baby. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.

State v. S.J., 2022AP160, 4/19/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sharon” pled “no contest” to being an unfit parent, and then the circuit court held that it was in “Danielle’s” best interests to terminate Sharon’s parental rights so that Danielle’s paternal aunt could adopt her. Sharon appealed that decision arguing that the circuit court failed to give sufficient consideration to 1 of the 6 “best interests of the child” factors in §48.426(3).

Dane County DHS v. A.D., 2022AP76 & 2022AP77, District 4, 3/31/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Another case showing that in TPR proceedings, “egregious” conduct is coming to mean “missing one hearing.”

Jackson County DHHS v. K.M.G., 2021AP2159, 3/17/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Shortly after birth, V.J.T. was placed with a foster mom, a cousin of V.J.T.’s biological mother. Meanwhile, K.M.G., (the biological father) and T.T. (a biological grandfather) remained involved with V.J.T.  The grandfather even wanted to be the child’s guardian, a result a child psychologist supported. The circuit court nevertheless, terminated the father’s parental rights when V.J.T. was 2. The court of appeals affirms mostly because V.J.T. had been with a foster mother since birth.

State v. N.H., 2021AP2035-2039, 2/22/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A trial court terminated N.H.’s parental rights to her 5 children. On appeal she argued that there was insufficient evidence to support findings that she was an unfit parent and that terminating her rights was in the best interest of her children. The court of appeals affirmed.