On Point: 40. TPRs

S.K. v. S.S., 2020AP277, District 3, 2/26/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not made available)

S.S. (or “Susan,” to use the court’s pseudonym) isn’t entitled to a new TPR grounds trial based on her trial attorney’s failure to object to the admission of testimony she argues was irrelevant “other-acts” evidence. Even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to object (and the court doesn’t necessarily agree that’s the case (¶16 n.4),

State v. V.R., 2020AP798 & 2020799, 1/26/21, Distrct 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is an appeal from an order terminating V.R.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejected a no-merit report because the record revealed that neither defense counsel nor the circuit court had discussed the meaning of a “substantial parental relationship” with V.R. before she pled no contest to failure to assume parental responsibility. On remand, V.R moved to withdraw her no contest plea and filed an affidavit. She lost her motion and now her appeal because she did not appear at the plea withdrawal hearing.

State v. J.T., 2020AP1151, 1/5/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

E.W. was placed in foster care shortly after birth. Her dad, J.T., was incarcerated then. He remained so a year later when the State filed a TPR petition against him on the grounds that he failed to establish a substantial relationship with E.W. and failed to exercise significant responsibility for her. According to the State, J.T. failed to attend E.W.’s medical appointments and participate in decisions about her education. He pled no contest, and the circuit court terminated his parental rights.

Barron County DHS v. M.S., 2020AP1257, District 3, 12/17/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If we were quarantining in Vegas, we’d bet this case is heading to SCOW.  The briefs are confidential but the main issues appear to be: whether the summary judgment deadline in §802.08(1) governs TPR cases; whether a court may extend that deadline for good cause; and how those rules apply to the facts of this case. The COA sows confusion by stating that it has conducted “independent research” suggesting that, despite SCOW precedent and the parties’ agreement, §802.08(1) doesn’t actually apply. It then applies §802.08(1).

Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, review of a published opinion granted 10/21/20, case activity.

When the court orders a child in need of protection or services (“CHIPS”) placed outside the family home, a parent’s rights may be terminated if he or she fails to meet the conditions for the child’s return in the timeframe set out by statute. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). In April 2018, the legislature shortened this timeframe. Under either version, the CHIPS order placing the child outside the home must include “notice” of “any grounds for termination of parental rights[.]” Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and
48.356.

Issues for Review:

Whether as a matter of statutory construction the new, shorter timeframe begins with the initial CHIPS order, even if it predates the change in the statute and thus does not include notice of the shorter timeframe.

Whether starting the shorter timeframe with a CHIPS order that predates the statutory change violates a parent’s due process rights.

Racine County DHS v. W.L.J., 2020AP197-198, October 14, 2020, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Good news for defense lawyers in TPR cases. The court of appeals means business. This is the third time in less than a year that it has reversed a termination of parental rights order due to a circuit court error on the question of whether a parent “abandoned” his or her child.

State v. C.A.A., 2020AP1194, District 1, 10/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the trial on the petition to terminate C.A.A.’s parental rights, the case manager handling the CHIPS case pertaining to C.A.A.’s child testified that, in her opinion, C.A.A. would not likely satisfy the conditions of return under the CHIPS order within the 9-month period prescribed by § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (a requirement eliminated by 2017 Wis. Act 256). (¶6 & ¶9 n.3). The court of appeals holds this was admissible lay opinion testimony.

State v. D.Q., 2020AP1109, 9/22/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.Q. fathered a child, K.C., with a woman here called N.E.C. D.Q. wasn’t involved with K.C. for three years after her birth; he had reason to suspect he was the father but did not seek to confirm this by testing. During that time, K.C. was taken from N.E.C.’s home for various intervals via CHIPS proceeding. N.E.C. also became involved with another man who played a substantial part in caring for K.C.

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.

N.M. v. State, 2020AP964, case activity; and State v. J.M.W., 2020AP1057, 9/22/20, case activity, District 1 (i-judge opinions, ineligible for publication)

Anyone who loves an alcoholic parent will find this decision heart-wrenching. J.M.W. has a close relationship with her 11 year old daughter, N.M. Unfortunately, J.M.W. also struggles with alcoholism and unstable housing, so the circuit court terminated her parental rights. Both mother and daughter appealed and challenged the circuit court’s “best interests of the child” analysis. In two overlapping decisions, the court of appeals called this a “difficult” case, but nevertheless affirmed.