On Point: 40. TPRs

Waushara County DHS v. A.J.P., 2019AP2387, District 4, 4/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering all the factors under § 48.426(3) when it decided to terminate A.J.P.’s parental rights.

S.L.H. v. J.J.D., 2019AP1554, District 2, 3/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The lawyer representing J.J.D. (“John”) in his TPR proceeding failed to mount a sufficient defense to the summary judgment motion brought by S.L.H. (“Sarah”). But that deficient performance didn’t prejudice John. The evidence the lawyer failed to present wasn’t enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment would have been granted anyway.

State v. D.L., 2019AP2331, District 1, 3/10/20; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The State petitioned to terminate D.L.’s parental rights to Y.P.-T.  for failure to assume parental responsibility in January 2017 and lost at a jury trial. So when the State filed a new T.P.R. proceeding in October 2018, D.L. moved the circuit court to instruct the jury instructed that he had a substantial relationship with Y.P-T for the first 20 months of her life. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Iron County DHS v. N.H.-D., 2019AP1520, District 3, 2/12/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

N.H.-D.’s claims that the termination of her parental rights violated various due process rights, but those claims are forfeited and undeveloped. Her claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is meritless. 

Racine County Human Services Department v. S.J.A., 2019AP2160 & 2161, 2/5/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

It would be interesting to see the briefs in this case, but since it’s a TPR, they’re not online. What we can see is the opinion, which shows commendable (and unfortunately uncommon) attention to detail. It’s easy to imagine a glib, slapdash affirmance of this summary judgment against the parent in a TPR; we don’t get one though. Instead we see a searching review of what was proved and what was not, and a (really all too uncommon) reversal.

Kenosha County DHS v. M.M.B., 2019AP1776 & 1777, 1/22/20, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.M.B. is the father of two children, each of whom has a serious genetic disorder that threatens normal brain growth and function. The disorder can’t be cured but it can be controlled by adherence to a ketogenic diet. Both children were adjudicated CHIPS due to M.M.B.’s asserted inability to provide for their special needs; he allegedly does not believe that they have the disorder and does not comprehend the recommended diet. He also, per the county, doesn’t respond to their emotional needs in appropriate ways.

State v. A.M., 2019AP475-476, District 1, 1/3/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is A.M.’s pro se appeal from an order terminating her parental rights to her two children. The briefs are confidential, and the court of appeals states that it had difficulty discerning her arguments.  She appears to have argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the circuit court erred in determining the best interests of her children.

State v. D.I.H., 2019AP1874, District 1, 12/27/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.I.H. challenges the order terminating the parental rights of her mother and father, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in concluding that termination was in her best interests. The court of appeals affirms.

Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. N.R.K., 2019AP1726, 12/27/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Here the court of appeals upholds the termination of a biological father’s parental rights, concluding that he failed to assume parental responsibility.

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5; case activity

J.R.’s children were placed outside the home pursuant to two CHIPS cases. During the placement, the legislature changed the 4th element for the “continuing CHIPS” ground for termination of parental rights. When the County petitioned to terminate J.R.’s rights, it proceeded under the amended statute. J.R. objected to the retroactive application of the amended statute on statutory and due process grounds.