On Point blog, page 9 of 61
COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing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.
Challenge to circuit court’s weighing of TPR factors fails
State v. S.N., 2023AP2366-67, 2/27/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sally’s” challenge to the court’s discretionary termination order fails, as the circuit court’s order was supported by evidence in the record.
Mother’s request to have children placed with grandmother rejected in TPR appeal
State v. M.M., 2023AP2093-2100, 2/22/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Challenges to circuit court disposition orders are almost never successful. This case is no exception. M.M. (“Melissa”) argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that terminating her parental rights to her eight children was in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms.
Judicial bias claim in TPR appeal rejected by COA
Kenosha County DC&FS v. R.M.F., 2023AP2156-157, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the difficult standard for proving judicial bias, COA concludes that R.M.F. has failed to show that the court’s remarks to jurors are a basis for reversing this TPR.
COA rejects ineffectiveness claim and challenge to denial of request for new counsel in TPR appeal
Columbia County DH&HS v. S.A.J., 2023AP1884, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a lengthy opinion notable for its treatise-like treatment of the issues, COA rejects S.A.J.’s challenges to her TPR order.
Defense Win! COA reverses summary judgment order in private TPR
K.W. & D.W. v. S.L., 2023AP1582, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
The summary judgment issue here turned on one simple question: did a genuine issue of fact exist as to whether S.L. (“Susan”) knew or could have reasonably discovered the whereabouts of her son (Alex) during the relevant period of alleged abandonment? Upon consideration of Susan’s multiple affidavits and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Susan, as the non-moving party, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment on grounds.
Challenge to court’s exercise of discretion at disposition rejected by COA
State v. E.M.A., 2023AP2043-45, 1/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
E.M.A.’s (“Emma’s) challenge to the court’s exercise of discretion at disposition fails and the court of appeals concludes the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Emma’s parental rights to her three children.
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s discretionary termination order
Sheboygan County DHHS v. J.L., 2023AP1884, 1/3/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal of the circuit court’s discretionary decision to terminate a parent’s rights, COA easily rejects J.L.’s invitation to reweigh the evidence.
SCOW will take another look at TPR dispo “burden” or lack thereof
State v. B.W., 2022AP1329, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; affirmed 6/27/24 case activity (briefs not available)
We don’t know the precise issue or issues presented, but the court of appeals’ decision suggests the state supreme court may be looking to un-fracture the fractured decision it rendered last term in State v. A.G. There, the circuit court had told a parent pleading to grounds in his TPR trial’s first phase that the state would have the burden in the second phase: that is, the state would have to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interest. Of the six justices who decided the case, four agreed there is no “burden”; rather the best-interest inquiry is the “polestar” (your guess is as good as ours on what sort of legal standard that encompasses). But these four could not agree on why the judge’s communication of this concededly incorrect standard didn’t mandate reversal; see our post for more on this.