On Point: 40. TPRs

Manitowoc County Human Services Dep’t v. Rebecca H, 2013AP421/422; 1/22/14; District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This is an appeal from an order terminating a couple’s parental rights to their daughter.  They claimed their trial lawyer provided ineffective of assistance of counsel by failing to object to the admission of various types of evidence.  The court of appeals quickly disposed of those errors through repeated findings that counsel’s performance was not deficient–which is one of the two requirements for ineffective assistance of counsel per A.S.

State v. Lawanda R., 2013AP1661, District 1/4, 1/16/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly found that a parent with serious cognitive disabilities (she “functions at the level of a child less than ten years old” (¶8)) was unfit under § 48.415(2) on the sole basis that she failed to meet the conditions established by a continuing CHIPS order for the return of Will,

Barron County DH&HS v. Tara H., 2013AP2250, District 3, 12/27/13, unpublished; case activity

This is Tara H.’s 2nd trip to the court of appeals regarding this TPR.  The first time she won a new dispositional hearing.  At the start of that 2nd dispositional hearing, Tara’s counsel asked the trial court about the relevant time period for determining whether termination of her parental rights was in her son’s best interests. 

Jessica G. and Joshua G. v. Alicia L., 2013AP1843, District 2, 11/27/13 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Issue: Whether Alicia’s L’s consent to the termination of her parental rights was voluntary.

¶6 The circuit court may accept a parent’s voluntary consent to TPR only after questioning the parent and determining that the consent is voluntary and informed. Wis. Stat. § 48.41(2)(a). In making its determination,

Winnebago County DHS v. Christina M.C., 2013AP1519/1520; District 2; 11/27/13 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

In the initial “grounds” stage of this TPR, the County and the GAL made several veiled references, plus one explicit reference, to the “bests of the child,” a topic that’s not to be addressed until stage 2.  Christina moved to set aside the finding that she is unfit as a parent, arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to these comments. 

Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity

This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.

The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise. 

Ozaukee County DHS v. Callen D.M., 2013AP1157, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Callen D.M. was not entitled to an instruction about the impossibility of meeting the conditions of a CHIPS order due to her incarceration, a TPR defense recognized in Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845:

¶13      The facts in Callen’s case stand in stark contrast to those in Jodie W.

State v. Roberta W., 2013AP936, District 1, 9/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that Roberta W. had failed to meet the conditions for the return of two of her other children under a CHIPS order in a different county because that evidence was relevant under La Crosse County Dept. of Human Servs.

State v. Samantha S., 2013AP1503 & 2013AP1504, District 1, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1503; 2013AP1504

During closing arguments at the fact-finding hearing the guardian ad litem referred to Samantha’s failure to keep visitation appointments and said this failure confused the children, who as a consequence were becoming attached to the foster caregivers. (¶2). The court holds this statement did not amount to an improper “golden rule”

State v. Angie S., 2013AP1412, District 1, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals rejects Angie S.’s arguments that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when terminating her parental rights by:  (1) failing to properly consider the effect of termination on the child’s biological family; and (2) inadequately considering whether the child’s paternal grandmother was a suitable candidate for guardianship.