On Point blog, page 4 of 59
COA: Evidence sufficient to affirm verdict finding grounds to terminate parental rights; cir. ct. did not erroneously exercise discretion in terminating rights.
Waukesha County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. M.M.M., 2024AP1622, 10/30/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a straightforward case addressing sufficiency of the evidence, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order to terminate M.M.M’s (referred to as Mary) parental rights. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding grounds to terminate her parental rights, and the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined terminating Mary’s parental rights to her son (referred to as Neal) was in his best interest.
Default judgment for failing to appear at TPR hearings affirmed.
Dane County v. L.D.D., 2024AP1267, District IV, 10/24/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating L.D.D.’s parental rights after it entered default judgment when she did not appear at the hearing on grounds to terminate or the disposition hearing. The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s order denying L.D.D.’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on new evidence.
COA rejects argument that circuit court made incorrect dispositional findings and affirms
State v. C.M., 2024AP1416-1418, District I, 10/15/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The parent’s challenge to the court’s discretionary termination decision goes nowhere given the standard of review.
COA affirms circuit court’s refusal to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at respondent’s trial to terminate parental rights because respondent not incarcerated when conditions of return were imposed.
Fond du Lac County Dept. of Social Services v. T.P.W., Jr., 2024AP553, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision refusing to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at T.P.W.’s trial to terminate his parental rights because he was incarcerated two months after conditions for return were ordered and his incarceration was not sole basis he failed to meet conditions.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to proceed under voluntary termination of parental rights statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41
A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.
COA: Circuit court exercised discretion at disposition despite not explicitly considering one factor
State v. S.O., 2024AP1350, 10/8/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.O. (“Sarah”) challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “Daniel,” arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition when it failed to explicitly consider Daniel’s wishes.
COA rejects challenges to TPR order and affirms
Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.
COA rejects challenges to “abandonment” verdict in TPR involving allegations that mother withheld child’s location from father
A.M.D. v. G.R.B., Jr., 2024AP1071, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
G.R.B. (“Bartel”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights, raising a medley of challenges. Although COA acknowledges that its prior precedent sent “mixed signals” to litigants on at least one of the issues, it ultimately rejects all of G.R.B.’s arguments and affirms.
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.