On Point blog, page 8 of 59
COA rejects challenges to grounds and dispositional phase in TPR
Jefferson County DHS v. C.T.S., 2023AP1404, 11/2/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.T.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his son, K.S. The court of appeals affirms, holding the county adduced sufficient evidence of the continuing CHIPS ground and acted within its discretion in weighing the dispositional factors.
COA rejects claim that glowing testimony about children’s likely post-TPR home during grounds phase prejudiced parent
J.S. v. J.T., 2023AP38-39, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jack” filed for termination of “Jasmine’s” parental rights to their two children. At trial, Jasmine’s counsel didn’t object when Jack’s lawyer elicited testimony from a social worker that the children “seemed to love it” at the house Jack shared with his wife, that the couple were transparent, and that they had a “great support person.” The court of appeals doesn’t decide whether this was deficient performance, instead concluding that Jasmine didn’t show she was prejudiced by the admission of the testimony against her.
COA rejects several challenges to private TPR
D.T.S. v. B.E.C., 2023AP1081, 10/5/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.E.C. is A.R.G.’s birth mother. D.T.S. is A.R.G.’s father. D.T.S. had sole physical custody after her mother left A.R.G. in his care when A.R.G. was two. Later, D.T.S. remarried and moved for termination of B.E.C.’s rights to A.R.G., alleging, as relevant here, abandonment. His new wife also petitioned to adopt the girl. The jury found B.E.C. unfit and the circuit court terminated her rights.
COA rejects challenges to dispositional order in TPR case under well-settled standard of review
Chippewa County Department of Human Services v. T.M.J., 2023AP463 & 2023AP464, 10/24/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 2 children.
COA affirms TPR dispositional order applying well-settled standard of review
State v. S.A., 2023AP1288-1292, 10/10/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 5 children.
COA affirms TPR, rejects father’s “love of his children” argument
State v. R.T., 2023AP1095 & 2023AP1096, District I, 9/12/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
R.T. (“Richard”) pled no contest to grounds but disputed whether his parental rights should be terminated at disposition. Specifically, Richard argued that “there was no support in the record for the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated.” The court of appeals disagrees, noting “there was ample support in the record for the court’s decision.” (Op., ¶15).
COA skirts A.G. claim in TPR appeal based on its reading of the record, applies usual deference to circuit court’s termination order
State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, District I, 9/12/23, PFR granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/2024; (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another TPR appeal presenting an alleged miscommunication of the dispositional burden of proof, COA’s close read of the record evidence prevents B.W. from obtaining a requested hearing.
COA once again rejects arguments that “direct evidence” from adoptive resources is required at a TPR dispositional hearing
Brown County D.H.S. v. A.K., 2023AP730, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
A.K. concedes that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion at this dispositional hearing, but argues that the order must still be reversed as there was no direct evidence from the proposed adoptive resource. COA rejects that argument and affirms.
COA disregards business as usual and reverses default judgment in Milwaukee County TPR
State v. C.D., 2023AP1025, District I, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an exciting defense win, District I signals a willingness to critically review default orders entered in Milwaukee County.
Lack of developed argument as to why “direct evidence” from foster parents should be required at a TPR dispositional hearing dooms appeal
Dane County DHS v. S.M., 2023AP607, 6/8/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).
In an appeal challenging the circuit court’s decision to terminate S.M.’s parental rights, the court of appeals concludes the court did not need to receive “direct evidence” from the proposed adoptive parents before exercising its discretion and entering a termination order.