On Point: 40. TPRs

Pierce County v. C.S., 2015AP1463 & 2015AP1464, District 3, 2/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her sons, D. S. and K. S., based on their continuing need for protection or services. She raises multiple, fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and circuit court error. All her claims are rejected.

Waushara County DHS v. V.L., 2016AP23, District 4, 2/25/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.L. challenged the circuit court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to her son R.E.L., arguing the circuit court didn’t properly consider four of the factors under § 48.426(3). The court of appeals finds no erroneous exercise of discretion.

M. L.-F. v. Oneida County Department of Social Services, 2016 WI App 25; case activity

The County filed for termination of the parental rights of the mother and father of twin boys. While the TPRs were pending, the father’s mother, M. L.-F, filed a petition for guardianship of her grandsons. The court of appeals now holds that court’s decision in the T.P.R–to place the children under state guardianship pending adoption by their foster parents–would override any conflicting order in the guardianship case, and so affirms the dismissal of the guardianship petition.

Rock County HSD v. D.B., 2015AP2420, District 4, 2/11/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects D.B.’s argument that the circuit court terminated her parental rights to T.J. without properly considering the facts that there was no adoptive resource available for T.J. at the time of termination, that a strong bond existed between T.J. and D.B. and T.J.’s older brother, and that T.J. had consistently expressed wishes to be returned to D.B.’s care.

Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. J.S., 2015AP1403, District 3, 1/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court entered a default judgment terminating J.S.’s parental rights after he failed to appear at the hearing scheduled on the petition, and the court of appeals holds J.S. isn’t entitled to reopen that judgment.

Barron County DHHS v. J.H., 2015AP1529, District 3, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.H.’s claims that her trial counsel was ineffective are rejected because trial counsel’s actions were either not deficient or not prejudicial.

K.C. v. B.S.-S., 2015AP1702, District 2, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.S.-S.’s single conviction for intentionally causing harm to a child in violation of § 948.03(2)(b) does not demonstrate “a pattern of physically … abusive behavior” under § 48.415(5), so the circuit court erred in terminating B.S.-S.’s parental rights based on that conviction.

Adams County DHHS v. D.S., 2015AP1937, District 4, 12/10/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, raising a substantive due process challenge to the jury’s finding of unfitness and contending that the circuit court erroneously found termination to be in the child’s best interest.

State v. L.C., 2015AP1460, District 1, 12/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating L.C.’s rights to her child T.C. because, as required by § 48.426(3)(c) and State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 26, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, the court considered whether T.C. had substantial relationships with his mother and siblings and whether severing those relationships would harm T.C.

Dane County DHS v. J.D., 2015AP1800, District 4, 11/19/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

One of the statutory grounds for a finding of unfitness leading to termination of parental rights is the court-ordered denial of placement or visitation for at least one year. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). In Dane County DHS v. P. P., 2005 WI 32, 279 Wis. 2d 169, 694 N.W.2d 344, the supreme court rejected a facial challenge to this ground but left open the possibility that, as applied, it might violate substantive due process in a particular case. Per the court of appeals, this is not that case.