State v. T.N., 2024AP1280, 4/22/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
T.N. appeals, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney did not object to statements she contends are inadmissible hearsay. COA assumes without deciding that the statements were hearsay and affirms the circuit court’s orders, concluding there was no prejudice to T.N.
T.N.’s son was removed from her care pursuant to a CHIPS petition in 2021. (¶2). In 2023, the state filed a TPR petition, which alleged, as grounds, continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶3). The court held a bench trial and concluded that sufficient grounds existed to terminate T.N.’s parental rights under both grounds. As to continuing CHIPS, the court found that T.N. had failed to satisfy the conditions for return within the requisite time frame. (¶4). As to failure to assume, the court relied on the child’s psychological evaluation, which contained diagnoses of reactive attachment disorder and PTSD, as well as other statements to conclude that T.N. failed to assume parental responsibility. (¶5).
T.N. filed a postdisposition motion arguing that her trial counsel had been ineffective, as he had failed to object on hearsay grounds to the testimony of three witnesses who described statements the child had made to them, essentially that he said his mother hates him, calls him dumb, hit him with a belt, didn’t listen to him, and called him dumb, and that he told his mother he wanted to kill himself. (¶7). The circuit court denied the motion based on its belief that the statements were admissible. (¶9).
COA concludes that regardless of whether the statements were inadmissible, T.N. did not sufficiently shown that she was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object. (¶14). Although the circuit court acknowledged that it relied in part on the statements in question, COA concludes, like the lower court, that there was sufficient evidence to support the grounds decision. (¶¶15-16).
As to the continuing CHIPS ground, COA references the circuit court’s finding that T.N. had failed to meet a number of the conditions necessary for her child’s return to her home, based on several witnesses’ testimony. (¶17). And while COA discusses the role the alleged hearsay played in the circuit court’s decision on failure to assume, it ultimately concludes that the court “noted that there was substantial evidence in [the child]’s psychological evaluation which pointed to significant abuse and instability in the home” and “also considered a wealth of other evidence and testimony from those involved in [the child]’s care.” (¶¶18-19).
It is unclear from the decision how the unobjected-to statements relate to the continuing CHIPS standard, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2), and the briefs are not available online. Similarly, while we do not know what T.N. argued in her briefs, as to failure to assume, the opinion does not contain any analysis of the sufficiency of the circuit court’s decision in light of the standard under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). One would assume that to deny T.N.’s claims based on a lack of prejudice, COA would analyze the sufficiency of other evidence the court relied on in determining that grounds for termination existed under these standards.
