On Point blog, page 5 of 58
COA: Mother forfeited personal jurisdiction and improper substitution claims
State v. J.S.,, 2024AP180 & 2024AP181, 4/16/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from TPR orders related to her two children, J.S. (“Julia”) raised two issues: whether the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over her and whether the circuit court erred by granting the GAL’s substitution request. The court of appeals makes short work of each argument because Julia forfeited the claims by not first raising either issue in the circuit court.
Fact-dependent attack on discretionary TPR order fails under extremely forgiving standard of review
Winnebago County Department of Human Services v. C.R.Q., II,, 2024AP81, 4/17/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent TPR appeal, “Craig” attacks the circuit court’s discretionary ruling on multiple fronts but fails due to the imposing standard of review.
Challenges to summary judgment ruling, dispositional order fail in TPR appeal
Brown County Health and Human Services v. R.U., 2024AP45-6 4/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another fact-dependent TPR appeal, COA affirms given well-settled (and difficult to overcome) legal standards.
COA rejects multi-pronged attack on TPR orders
Jackson County Department of Human Services v. I.J.R.,, 2023AP1495-6 4/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another beefy TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of I.J.R.’s arguments and affirms.
COA rejects multiple challenges in TPR appeal
Dane County Department of Human Services v. J.K., 2023AP1946-47, 3/28/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of J.K.’s arguments and affirms.
COA rejects father’s challenge to TPR disposition
State v. K.P., 2023AP2404-06, 3/19/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.P. (“Kevin”) challenged the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights on two grounds: (1) that his own testimony demostrated he had a substantial relationship with his three children and (2) because there was a lack of evidence concerning the childrens’ wishes. The court of appeals concludes that is is “clear” the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining that terminating Kevin’s parental rights to his children was in their best interests.
Despite circuit court missteps, COA affirms TPR
Kenosha County DCFS v. J.M.C. III, 2023AP1382, 3/13/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In affirming the termination of J.M.C.’s parental rights to his daughter, the court holds that (1) the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying J.M.C.’s request for a new attorney and (2) the circuit court’s failure to take testimony in support of J.M.C.’s no contest plea to grounds was harmless.
COA affirms denial of IAC claim in TPR summary judgment appeal
Sheboygan County DH & HS v. A.P., 2023AP1382, 2/7/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Faced with the department’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of abandonment, counsel for A.P filed a brief in opposition and attached two exhibits, but failed to file any affidavits. Postdisposition and on appeal, A.P. argues that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to obtain or file an affidavit in opposition to the department’s motion and for not informing A.P. of the dire need for counsel to do so. The court affirms the rejection of A.P.’s claims and faults A.P. for asking to receive the benefit of her own error under the “doctrine of invited error.” Op., ¶27.
COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing
State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, 3/5/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25 case activity
In an interesting decision that seems almost guaranteed to invite review by SCOW, COA departs from the plain language of the statute and reads a burden of proof requirement into the TPR dispositional procedure.
Trial court erred by failing to take testimony at TPR plea hearing, but COA affirms based on lack of prejudice
State v. I.A.A., 2023AP1723-24, 2/28/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Long story short, the court of appeals affirms the orders terminating I.A.A.’s (“Ivy’s”) parental rights despite the circuit court’s admitted failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3)’s mandate to take testimony related to grounds at Ivy’s no contest plea hearing. Because the court was able to “tease out” all the necessary elements to grounds from “other witnesses at other hearings,” the court concludes that Ivy was not prejudiced and that the error was harmless. Op., ¶33.