Termination of Parental Rights

RSS Link

Marathon County v. S.S., 2024AP1866, 5/8/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sean” appeals orders of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his daughter, “Zoey,” and denying his motion for postdisposition relief. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in four respects during the grounds trial, and that he was prejudiced by the individual and cumulative effects of counsel’s deficient performance. COA rejects Sean’s first two IAC claims and concludes…
Continue Reading COA rejects numerous IAC claims, affirms jury verdict in TPR appeal

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

Holly was removed from Amber’s care at the age of two due to Amber’s substance abuse issues. She was then placed in three homes over the next four…
Continue Reading COA affirms challenge to TPR disposition under erroneous exercise of discretion standard

J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.

The child, R.H., had drugs in his system when J.L.B. gave birth to him in 2021. J.L.B. was R.H.’s primary caretaker until he “overdosed”…
Continue Reading COA reverses grant of summary judgment in TPR, holds that issues of material fact exist as to abandonment and failure to assume

S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.

S.G. initiated this litigation by filing a CHIPS petition on her behalf under § 48.13(9). (¶10). In essence, S.G., who was receiving services under a TPR order, was about to turn 18 and needed the CHIPS order so she could continuing receiving…
Continue Reading In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner

Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.

In this TPR, the County was attempting to terminate the rights of a person known to be homeless, a fact which complicated its attempts to achieve service. Following unsuccessful attempts to serve “Nathaniel” personally, the County…
Continue Reading COA holds that while service was defective in TPR, court’s factual findings merit affirmance

Over its last several sessions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has attempted to determine that burden of proof required during at dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights case in Wisconsin.

The Court first addressed this issue in June 2023 in its decision in State v. A.G.1 In a December 2023 article in this blog, my co-author Courtney L.A. Roelandts and I provided a detailed analysis of this case, which dealt with the issue of the burden…
Continue Reading Soon We May Soon Know the Required Burden of Proof in TPR Dispositional Hearings

In May 2024 in this blog, 1 my co-author Jenni Spies Karas and I warned that practitioners and judges should be mindful to cite the authority by which they are requesting or entering default judgment, pending the outcome of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case State v. R.A.M.

That caution has become a reality.

Courtney L.A. Roelandts, Marquette 2018, is the assistant managing attorney of the Children’s Court Guardian ad Litem Division of the Legal Aid Society of…
Continue Reading State v. R.A.M. and a Parent’s Right to Counsel in TPR Cases

The October oral argument calendar lists a measly two cases, both of which will be argued on October 9. That’s eight fewer cases than the court heard last October. In this month’s column, take a look at the sole civil case on the court’s October calendar and take a peek at a case recently granted for review.
Cases Decided
No decisions were issued in the last month.
Up for Review
Andrade v. City of Milwaukee Board of Fire and…
Continue Reading Wisconsin Supreme Court Update: October 2023

Columbia County DHS v. K.D.K., 2022AP1835, 5/25/23, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

K.D.K. challenged an order terminating his parental rights to C.A.K. on 3 grounds: (1) the judge was not properly assigned to preside over his case; (2) the circuit court refused to give a special verdict question asking whether it had been impossible for K.D.K. to meet the conditions for return set forth in the CHIPS dispositional; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective…
Continue Reading Termination of parental rights affirmed despite some missteps

The primary goal of Wis. Stat. chapter 48 is to protect children and to preserve families, whenever appropriate. When this cannot be done, “instability and impermanence in family relationships are contrary to the welfare of children and … [there is] importance of eliminating the need for children to wait unreasonable periods of time for their parents to correct the conditions that prevent their safe return to the family.“1

As practitioners, one simple way we can ensure children achieve…
Continue Reading No Contest Pleas to Grounds in TPR Cases: A Practical Guide

State v. A.H., 2022AP1454, 12/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The sole issue in this TPR appeal is whether the circuit court failed to consider the “best interests” of D.H.’s daughter. D.H. noted that the circuit court’s oral decision “wholly omits consideration of and reference to the best interest factor.” Opinion, ¶13. That argument failed because the circuit court is not required to “utter any magic words” when performing its “best interests” analysis. Opinion,…
Continue Reading Court Needn’t Reference Statute when Ruling on “best interest of the child” Factors