On Point

Manitowoc County HSD v. K.R., 2022AP1975-78, 12/27/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Presented with a confusing pro se attack on permanency orders entered in these underlying CHIPS cases, COA affirms largely because it cannot ascertain the nature of the appellant’s challenge.

The court of appeals issued the final two publication orders of the year on November 29, 2023, and December 21, 2023. Two criminal law related decision are included in the orders: State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2023 WI App 61 (holding that the “execution” of a search warrant does not include forensic analysis that can […]

State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.

State v. Lauren Dannielle Peterson, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Peterson’s circuit court win is short-lived after the court of appeals concludes that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate an OWI investigation and probable cause existed to ask Peterson to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT).

State v. James T. Kettner, 2023AP160, 161, 162, 11/28/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Kettner, pro se, appealed from three traffic forfeiture judgments and claimed that an open records violation prevented him from presenting video evidence that would have proved [his] innocence. The court of appeals rejects his claim and affirms the judgments.

State v. S.H., 2023AP1786, 12/19/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.H. raises a very specific challenge to the order terminating her parental rights to her son, H.C.: that the circuit court failed to consider the age of H.C.’s foster mother with regard to the best interests of the child at disposition. The court of appeals rejects the challenge, and S.H.’s reliance on several prospective adoption cases, because the focus in the TPR context is whether the child is adoptable and whether the TPR would provide stability and permanence to the child, not on “whether a proposed adoptive resource is going to be approved in later proceedings.” Op., ¶19.

State v. S.F., 2023AP1699, 1702-1705, 12/12/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In an all-around sad TPR appeal, S.F. (“Sabrina”) challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that grounds existed to terminate and (2) the court’s discretionary decision to terminate her parental rights to her five children. Despite the fact that neither court doubted Sabrina’s love and affection for her children, the court of appeals affirms.

Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication.

Douglas County v. J.M., 2022AP2035, 11/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“James” was subjected to a guardianship under ch. 54 and a protective placement under ch. 55 in 2020. He had annual reviews of placement in 2021 and 2022; the last one is the subject of this appeal. James argues that the county was obligated to put on medical expert testimony to meet its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he meets three of the elements for a protective placement (he does not dispute that he is an adult who’s been found incompetent, the remaining element). The court of appeals delves into the record of past hearings and holds that these older filings fill in the gaps. But isn’t the point of a due-process (Watts) review to determine how the person is doing now?

Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2023AP863, 12/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another defense win reliant on Langlade County v. D.J.W.,  COA holds that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings in this Chapter 51 appeal.