On Point: 40. TPRs

Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2.

State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here.

State v. M.G., 2018AP835, 10/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.G. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, M.W. He stipulated to unfitness on the ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). On appeal, he contends the circuit court erroneously imported the required finding for this ground–that he lacked a “substantial parental relationship” with the child–into the third factor of the disposition phase, which concerns only “substantial relationship(s)” between the child and M.G. or others in his family. See Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c).

Rock County DHS v. L.H., 2018AP1308, 10/11/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H. challenges the circuit court’s finding that the county department established continuing-CHIPS grounds for termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She says the county can’t have met its burden to show a “substantial likelihood” she wouldn’t meet the conditions of return within nine months, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (recently amended), because the court said “I don’t know” whether she’d meet the conditions.

State v. R.D.S., 2017AP1771, District 1, 9/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.D.S. moved to withdraw her no-contest plea to a TPR petition, saying her plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of the cognitive disabilities for which she was found to be incompetent during the underlying CHIPS proceedings and a criminal case involving charges of abuse of her child. The circuit court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, and court of appeals affirms.

State v. B.D.S., 2017AP1770, District 1, 8/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.D.S. filed a motion for postdisposition relief seeking to withdraw his no-contest plea to a TPR petition, alleging there was an issue about his competency to understand the proceedings. (¶9). The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

K.M. v. R.O., 2018AP1206, District 1, 9/18/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

One ground for terminating a person’s parental rights is that the parent “abandoned” his child for 6 months or longer. In this case, a court ordered R.O. to have no contact with the mother of his child, which interfered with his visitation efforts. This appeal stems from the trial court’s customization of a jury instruction to address that problem and from the jury’s finding that R.O. had failed to assume parental responsibility.

Monroe County DHS v. J.N.D., 2018AP177, District 4, 8/23/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects J.N.D.’s argument that her TPR trial should be redone because the real controversy wasn’t fully tried.

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.