On Point: 40. TPRs

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.

State v. S.N.N., 2016AP2102 & 2016AP2103, District 1, 12/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.N.N. admitted the continuing CHIPS ground that was alleged in the TPR petition regarding her two children. The court of appeals rejects her claim that her admission was not knowing and voluntary.

State v. D.C., 2016AP2229-2230, District 1, 11/30/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of her TPR proceeding, D.C.’s lawyer asked the trial court to: (1) instruct the jury that she was prohibited from having visitation with her children for a period of time, and (2) give curative instructions that it was impossible for her to perform a condition for return of her kids and to assume parental responsibility due to her incarceration.  The court planned to rule on these requests just before trial, but, oops, that did not happen.

State v. R.G., 2017AP1078, District 1, 11/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After R.G.’s parental rights were terminated the child was removed from the care of D.L., the foster parent at the time of the TPR dispositional hearing and prospective adoptive parent, because D.L. was abusing the child. (¶¶5-6). A new disposition hearing isn’t merited because this new evidence wasn’t sufficient to “affect[] the advisability of the court’s original adjudication” under § 48.46(1) and Schroud v. Milw. Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 53 Wis. 2d 650, 654, 193 N.W.2d 671 (1972). (¶¶10-15).

Dane County DHS v. S.J., 2017AP1578-1580, 10/19/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication) case activity

When an opinion starts by saying a mother answered more than 80 questions relating to her understanding of pleading “no contest” during the grounds phase of a TPR case and quotes the her lawyer as saying “she’s one of the brightest clients I’ve ever worked with,” you know her motion to withdraw her plea is doomed.

State v. M.P., 2016AP2104 & 2016AP2105, District 1, 10/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the dispositional hearing on the petition to terminate M.P.’s parental rights to his two children the court heard evidence that the foster parents intended to allow M.P. to continue to have contact with the children if his parental rights were terminated. (¶8). The court of appeals rejects M.P.’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this evidence.