On Point: 40. TPRs

G.K. v. S.C., 2019AP1645, 2019AP1646, & 2019AP1647, District 4, 11/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.C.’s parental rights to her three children were terminated due to continued denial of periods of physical placement under § 48.415(4) based on a family court order that denied her periods of physical placement. She argued the family court order could not be the basis for a TPR because it didn’t advise her of the conditions necessary for the children to be returned to her or for her to be granted placement or visitation. Maybe so, says the court of appeals, but the statute doesn’t require the family court order to do that.

State v. C.M., 2019AP1483, District 1, 11/5/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court didn’t err in entering a default judgment against C.M. in her termination of parental rights proceeding. 

Waupaca County v. J.J., 2019AP805, 10/29/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.J. challenges the termination of his parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and lack of a factual basis for his no contest plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

State v. T.S.W., 2019AP450-451, District 1, 10/22/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court failed to hold a hearing on T.S.W.’s motion for change of physical placement of her child, J.C., before the jury trial on the grounds phase of her TPR. She argued that this violated her right to due process because if she had prevailed at the hearing, the jury would have heard evidence that J.C. had been placed in the parental home with T.S.W., rather than outside the parental home.

Dane County v. T.R., 2019AP1336-1338, 10/10/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a confidential case, so we don’t know what the briefs argue or the record shows. However, it seems the circuit court failed to make the findings essential to its order terminating T.R.’s parental rights to her 3 children, and the court of appeals shored up the decision in  order to affirm.

Outagamie County DHHS v. R.P., 2019AP990 & 2019AP991, District 3, 10/1/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating R.P.’s parental rights, and in particular didn’t err by not considering a guardianship instead of termination.

State v. K.K.E., 2019AP115-117; 9/24/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court terminated K.K.E.’s parental rights based on the best interests of her three daughters. On appeal, K.K.E. conceded that the trial court addressed the 6 “best interests of the child” factors required by §48.426(3). But she challenged the weight the trial court assigned to each factor. In affirming, the court of appeals explains how a trial court’s weighing of these factors is virtually unassailable on appeal.

State v. T.L.G., 5018AP1291, 9/4/19, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.G., who is cognitively limited, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son. During the proceedings below her lawyer requested a competency evaluation; eventually the court appointed T.L.G. a guardian ad litem. T.L.G. ultimately pleaded no-contest to the asserted ground of continuing CHIPS, and her rights were terminated.

Walworth County DHS v. S.S.K., 2019AP782, 7/17/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of the Walworth County’s TPR case against S.S.K., she “admitted” the ground of continuing CHIPS; she didn’t plead “no contest.”  This distinction proved decisive to the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.S.L. 

Outagamie County v. J.M.J., 2019AP183, 6/27/19, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The parties to this TPR case agreed that they would not bring up J.M.J.’s lack of rights, or the termination of rights, to her other children. But during the trial on grounds, an expert, responding to questions from the County, referred to her son whom she had given up for adoption.  J.M.J. argued that this amounted to prosecutorial misconduct by the County.