On Point: 40. TPRs

Sheboygan County DHHS v. K.N.L., 2017AP2413, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.N.L. asserts a prospective juror (“Juror J.”) was biased and so the circuit court erred in declining to strike her for cause. Applying Wisconsin’s case law governing jury bias (summarized at ¶¶13-16), the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s conclusion the juror wasn’t biased and, even if she was, the failure to strike her was harmless as she didn’t end up on the jury because K.N.L. peremptorily struck her.

State v. T.W., 2018AP967 & 2018AP968, District 1, 8/21/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the trial on the petition to terminate T.W.’s parental rights, the GAL argued in closing that the jury should consider the interests of the children. T.W.’s lawyer didn’t object, but the court of appeals holds that failure wasn’t prejudicial and so rejects T.W.’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective.

State v. R.D.J., 2017AP547, 8/7/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.D.J. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, T.S.J. He argues that his lawyer was ineffective for not challenging the state’s expert’s report on Daubert and undue prejudice grounds, that his due process rights were violated because T.S.J.’s removal from the home made it impossible for him to show a substantial parental relationship, and that the CHIPS order itself established that such a relationship existed.

Monroe County DHS v. A.D., 2018AP825, District 4, 7/5/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.D. argues the circuit court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment as to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights, which alleged continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation under § 48.415(4). She also challenges the constitutionality of § 48.415(4), both on its face and as applied to her. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.

State v. M.A.H., 2017AP1785 & 2017AP1786, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. K.C.H., 2017AP1787 & 2017AP1788, District 1, 7/3/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.H. and K.C.H. entered no-contest pleas to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petitions to terminate the parental rights to their children. They later challenged those pleas, arguing they weren’t voluntary because they were induced by a promise to allow additional visitation  of the children, who were in foster care, pending a disposition hearing if they entered the pleas. Their challenge fails because there was no such promise.

State v. F.E.L., 2017AP2489, 6/5/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

F.E.L. seeks to withdraw his no contest plea at the grounds phase of his TPR proceeding. He contends there was an insufficient factual basis for the single ground he pled to, failure to assume parental responsibility.

State v. P.J., 2018AP376-2018AP381, 5/30/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

P.J. challenged the termination of her parental rights to her 6 children on the grounds that the circuit court failed to appropriately consider the substantial bond  that she had with her children and improperly relied on testimony by the various foster parents that the children would continue to have contact with each other. The court of appeals affirmed.

As you might guess, parents in TPR appeals don’t fare well in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This edition of SCOWstats digs deeper and looks at how individual justices have voted in these cases over the past 25 years. Click SCOWstats to find out more.

State v. A.E., 2017AP1773 & 2017AP1774, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is the third TPR opinion in a week addressing challenges to the denial of a postjudgment fact-finding hearing under § 809.107(6)(am) and a constitutional challenge to the application of the failure to assume parental responsibility standard to a parent whose children have been removed from the home under a CHIPS order. As with the other two cases, the court of appeals rejects the challenges.

State v. L.J., 2017AP1225, 2017AP1226, & 2017AP1227, District 1, 5/1/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.J. challenges her no-contest plea to there being grounds to terminate her parental rights to three of her seven children. She argues the plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary and that § 48.415(6), the statute regarding failure to assume parental responsibility, is unconstitutional as applied to her. She also argues there was improper testimony at the disposition hearing. The court of appeals rejects each claim.