On Point

Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.

The last two months brought a number of interesting cases including a challenge to a Dropbox search, some 4A cases, a coroner keeping mementos from the bodies of crime victims and a would-be pornographer claiming he lacked knowledge his victim was 16.

Manitowoc County HSD v. K.H., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Confronted with a relatively straightforward challenge to the circuit court’s discretion, COA finds that no exceptions to mootness require it to address K.H.’s arguments.

Racine County v. P.L., 2026AP132, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects P.L.’s arguments that the county failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support a conclusion that he is dangerous under the second standard (via the recommitment standard) and the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings, and affirms.

State  v. A.V., 2026AP359, 6/30/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

AV turned 17 after the circuit court denied the state’s first waiver petition. The state petitioned again to waive A.V. into adult criminal court, citing WIS. STAT. § 938.18(2) as the statutory basis for the petition and making new allegations. COA affirms the circuit court’s denial of the state’s second petition without an evidentiary hearing.

Pierce County Dept of Human Services v. K.D.B., 2025AP2643, 6/30/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Kevin” appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, and an order denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance at the grounds trial. He also argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in his daughter’s best interests. COA affirms.

Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 7/7/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW holds that this appeal from an annual review of a protective placement is not moot, somewhat reluctantly applies the governing standard of review, and affirms.

Ozaukee County v. T.D.D., 2025AP2257, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Ozaukee County’s petition for commitment under Chapter 51 in light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B. that failing to comply with the 48-hour deadline to make expert reports available to counsel did not divest the circuit court of competency.

State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.

State v. R.R.L., 2026AP956, 7/1/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Roger” contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition because, in determining that termination was in the best interest of his son, “Marcus,” the court failed to consider relevant facts regarding Marcus’s relationships with other family members even though such relationships may not have been substantial. COA affirms.