On Point: 40. TPRs

J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children.

Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., Jr., 2018AP2440 to 208AP2443, District 4, 4/4/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase R.H.H.’s termination of parental rights proceedings, the circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of continuing denial of visitation under § 48.415(4). Not so fast, says the court of appeals.

State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.

S.D. v. A.V., 2018AP1150, District 4, 3/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.D. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of A.V., her ex-husband, after he was convicted and sent to prison for possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirms the unfitness finding but remands for a dispositional hearing.

Racine County HSD v. L.R.H.-J., 2018AP2065, District 2, 3/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.R.H.-J. was convicted of child neglect in causing the death of her first child in 2005. In 2015 she had another child, “Baby J,” who was immediately taken from her and a CHIPS proceeding commenced. In 2017 her rights to Baby J were terminated, after the circuit court granted summary judgment at the grounds phase, citing §48.415(9m). The court of appeals rejects facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the use of that statute against her with respect to Baby J.

Brown County Human Services v. B.P and T.F., 2019 WI App 18; case activity

T.F. argued that when the Department seeks to terminate parental rights on the grounds of abandonment in a case where the child is out of the home and a CHIPS order is in place, it must proceed under §48.415(1)(a)2., rather than (a)3. T.F. also argued that allowing the Department to proceed under (a)3 would result in an Equal Protection violation. The court of appeals rejected these arguments but held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to T.F. because material facts were in dispute over whether she had good cause for abandoning her daughter, Allie.

D.R. v. B.D., 2018AP1731 & 2018AP1732, District 3, 2/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.D.’s challenges to the order terminating his parental rights come up short.

State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; 2/19/19; case activity (including briefs)

The State of Wisconsin petitioned the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to terminate C.L.K.’s parental rights, following which the matter went to trial in due course. After the State rested, the circuit court immediately  decided that Mr. K. was an unfit parent. That is, the circuit court decided the matter before giving Mr. K. an opportunity to present his case. The State concedes this was error, but says it is susceptible to a “harmless-error” review. It is not. We hold that denying a defendant the opportunity to present his case-in-chief is a structural error, the consequence of which is an automatic new trial. Opinion, ¶1.

State v. S.M.T., 2018AP2113, 2018AP2114, & 2018AP2115, District 1, 1/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects S.M.T.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her parental rights based on the children’s continuing need of protective services and S.M.T.’s failure to assume parental responsibility.

State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?