On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. C.S.S., 2017AP1138, 2017AP1139, 2017AP1140, & 2017AP1141, District 1, 3/6/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.S.S. entered an admission to a TPR petition alleging her four children were in continuing need of protection and services. The court of appeals rejects her argument that she should be able to withdraw that admission because the judge misinformed her about the burden of proof at the disposition phase when it said the state had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would be in the children’s best interest to terminate her parental rights.

State v. J.W., 2017AP689-690, 2/27/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.W. appealed a circuit court order terminating her parental rights to her 2 children and argued that (1) her trial lawyer misadvised her to enter a no-contest plea to grounds for termination and didn’t try hard to find a relative to place her children with, and (2) she did not knowingly agree to adjourn proceedings to work on conditions for return of her children–conditions that were impossible to meet.

Manitowoc County Human Serv. Dep’t v. J.K., 2017AP2371, 2/21/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you handle TPR cases, this opinion is worth reading because the appellant raised creative arguments regarding, for example, the proper legal standard for summary judgment and a court’s ability to take judicial notice  of its own records. She also lodged an “as applied” constitutional challenge to §48.415(6) regarding failure to assume parental responsibility. This decision has SCOW potential.

State v. L.M.O., 2017AP1814, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.M.O. argues that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his child D.A.M. He also argues the court’s findings violated his due process rights because they were based on D.A.M.’s out-of-home placement and L.M.O.’s subsequent lack of contact with D.A.M. while a no-contact order was in effect. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

State v. L.J., 2017AP2380, 2017AP2381, & 2017AP2382, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.J. argues the circuit court terminated her parental rights to her children without properly considering whether her children had a substantial relationship with her or her family members. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. M.D.W., 2017AP1945 & 1946, 1/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.D.W. appeals only the disposition in the TPR of her two children. She argues that the court erred in its consideration of the statutory factors. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.

Kewaunee County DHS v. R.I., 2018 WI App 7; case activity

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of appeals holds that the additional fact finding mandated in TPR proceedings involving an Indian child don’t apply when the parent never had physical or legal custody of the child.

Kenosha County DHS v. V.J.G., 2017AP1150 & 2017AP1151, District 2, 12/27/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.J.G.’s failed to appear at the pretrial and grounds trial in the TPR proceedings regarding his children. The circuit court then discharged V.J.G.’s lawyer, set a new evidentiary and dispostional hearing, and terminated V.J.G.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejects V.J.G.’s challenges to  § 48.23(2)(b)3., the statute on which the court based its actions.

State v. M.K., 2017AP1952-1953, 12/27/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The record for a termination of rights appeal is required by law to be confidential. Thus, in such a case the court of appeals must refer to the individuals involved by their initials, pseudonyms, or other appropriate designations. This rule balances the individual’s right to confidentiality with the public’s right to know how our judges are applying and developing the law. Nobody disputes the wisdom of the rule. On Point questions its application in this particular appeal.