On Point: 40. TPRs

Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. C.C., 2017AP750, District 2, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing in C.C.’s TPR proceeding was sufficient to establish that she failed to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6).

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1413 & 2017AP1414, District 1, 10/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/14/18, reversed, 2019 WI 14; case activity

The circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the state during the grounds phase of the TPR proceedings against C.L.K. without allowing him the opportunity to present evidence. The court of appeals agrees this was error, but holds the error was harmless.

M.R.B. v. S.S., 2017AP1217-1219, 10/5/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This slim opinion delivers hard blows to a father resisting the termination of his parental rights. They concern circuit court competency, a request for a continuance, and the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether termination was in the best interests of his children. The court of appeals’ reasoning on the last point supplies fodder for a petition for review.

Dane County DHS v. N.C., 2017AP788, District 4, 9/21/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

N.C. filed a postdisposition motion challenging the circuit court’s termination of her parental rights to M.M. She argued, among other things, that her trial lawyer was ineffective in failing to have the termination order entered as voluntary, rather than involuntary.

J.N.W. v. J.R.P., 2017AP1390, 9/20/17, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Robert, the father of Jessica, appeals the termination of is parental rights. Specifically, he argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he failed to communicate with her for more than six months, and even if he did, whether he had good cause for his failure.

State v. C.L.H., 2017AP1278-1280, 9/6/17, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court terminated C.L.H.’s parental rights to her biological children, A.L.H., H.H. and M.J.H. The sole issue on appeal was whether the circuit court’s refusal to place the kids with C.H. (their maternal grandfather) and E.B. (his fiancée) amounted to an erroneous exercise of discretion.  The court of appeals said “no.”

State v. J.M.W., 2017AP158, District 1, 9/6/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.W. contends the steps in the proceedings terminating his parental rights occurred out of order and therefore the circuit court lost competency to conduct a disposition hearing. The court of appeals holds he waived a competency challenge by not raising it in the circuit court first.

Monroe County DHS v. T.M., 2017AP875 & 2017AP876, District 4, 8/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.M.’s parental rights were terminated on abandonment grounds under § 48.415(1). (¶¶2-10). She argues this violated her substantive due process rights under Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, because the period of alleged abandonment included time during which the County suspended her visitation rights based on her failure to satisfy conditions it was impossible for her to meet. (¶14). The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. K.J. & State v. A.W., 2016AP1501/1502 and 2017AP720/721, District 1, 8/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2016AP1501; 2016AP1502; 2017AP720; 2017AP721

The circuit court didn’t lose competency to terminate the parental rights of K.J. and A.W. after an initial TPR petition failed, nor did the doctrine of issue preclusion apply to the second TPR trial.

State v. K.H., 2016AP1180, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During a lengthy colloquy regarding her “no contest” plea to grounds for terminating parental rights to her son, K.H. “seemed confused.” She said she hadn’t taken all of her prescribed medication. The court was concerned that she “was not able to fully understand the proceedings.” So her lawyer conducted a direct examination to determine her understanding of what she was doing. Eventually, the court was satisfied that she did and found that her plea was freely, voluntarily and intelligently given. Then it proceeded to establish a factual basis for it. On appeal, K.H. contends that (1) her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and (2) the court erred in accepting the plea before the factual basis for it was proven as required by §48.422(7).