On Point blog, page 2 of 59
COA rejects numerous IAC claims, affirms jury verdict in TPR appeal
Marathon County v. S.S., 2024AP1866, 5/8/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sean” appeals orders of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his daughter, “Zoey,” and denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in four respects during the grounds trial, and that he was prejudiced by the individual and cumulative effects of counsel’s deficient performance. COA rejects Sean’s first two IAC claims and concludes that he failed to establish prejudice.
COA affirms TPR, holding parent failed to establish prejudice due to admission of “arguably inadmissible hearsay”
State v. T.N., 2024AP1280, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
T.N. appeals, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney did not object to statements she contends are inadmissible hearsay. COA assumes without deciding that the statements were hearsay and affirms the circuit court’s orders, concluding there was no prejudice to T.N.
COA affirms default finding in TPR due to single missed court date
State v. A.L., 2025AP177, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the respondent’s claim that she was never given notice of the time for a jury status hearing, COA affirms the circuit court’s default finding.
COA affirms challenge to TPR disposition under erroneous exercise of discretion standard
Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.
COA reverses grant of summary judgment in TPR, holds that issues of material fact exist as to abandonment and failure to assume
J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.
COA holds that while service was defective in TPR, court’s factual findings merit affirmance
Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.
COA rejects a panoply of challenges to TPR and affirms
Kenosha County DC&FS v. K.E.H., 2024AP1101, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent appeal stemming from a TPR jury trial, COA applies strict legal standards in order to reject the appellant’s multiple claims of ineffectiveness.
COA rejects sufficiency challenge to grounds and finds that court did not err in terminating parental rights
State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.
COA: Circuit court may, sua sponte, relieve parent from voluntarily terminating parental rights when extraordinary circumstances are presented.
M.S. v. R.F., 2024AP814, District I, 11/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order granting M.S. (referred to as Michelle) relief from her voluntary termination of parental rights because her decision to terminate was premised on terminating R.F.’s (referred to as Richard) parental rights, and the Court of Appeals in a previous decision remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial on whether grounds existed to terminate Richard’s rights.
COA rejects ineffectiveness appeal litigated by TPR petitioner on procedural grounds
N.C. v. R.G., 2024AP996, District II, 11/20/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a TPR appeal with a very unusual posture, COA rejects the petitioner’s appeal given her failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure.