On Point blog, page 4 of 59
SCOW accepts review of case that will clarify standard of proof for TPR dispositional hearings
State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25; case activity (including briefs)
In a seemingly inevitable grant given a flood of appeals raising an identical issue, SCOW has accepted review of this unpublished TPR decision, which held–for the first time in Wisconsin law–that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at the dispositional phase of a TPR.
COA: Plea to grounds for TPR entered knowingly, despite circuit court misstating burden of proof that would apply at disposition.
State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.
COA: TPR defendant not misled regarding burden of proof at disposition hearing during plea colloquy
State v. N.H., 2024AP597, District I, 9/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.W. forecloses N.H’s TPR appeal that his plea was involuntary because the circuit court misled him regarding the burden of proof at the dispositional phase.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.
COA affirms discretionary termination order under deferential standard of review
State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.
COA rejects attack on discretionary termination order under well-settled precedent
Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying TPR defendant’s request for new counsel.
Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.
In a refreshingly straightforward statutory construction case, SCOW upholds defense TPR win
State v. R.A.M., 2024 WI 26, 6/25/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a 5-2 defense win, SCOW concludes that a statute requiring the circuit court to wait two days before proceeding to disposition after finding a parent in default means what it says.
In a sequel to its previous decision in A.G., SCOW holds that parent is not entitled to plea withdrawal or new dispo hearing; leaves other issues open
State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 6/27/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a closely-watched TPR appeal, SCOW issues a decision that leaves many open questions regarding the vexing “burden of proof” issue that has ensnarled lower courts.
Mother’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge rejected because circuit court entered a TPR dispo order “a reasonable judge could reach”
State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.