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.
Following the filing of CHIPS petitions for four of K.R.’s children, K.R. ultimately entered a no contest plea, following by an uncontested dispositional order transferring legal custody of the children to the County. (¶3). Over two years later, and following an extension of the dispositional orders, the circuit court entered amended permanency plans. (¶5). While a docket sheet shows that this order was also uncontested, COA reminds the reader it doesn’t really know what happened at the hearing because K.R. never filed the relevant transcript despite also appealing from those orders. (¶5).
The County, for its part, also expresses bafflement as to the nature of K.R.’s appellate challenge. (¶6). Although K.R. raises a battery of legal arguments–including a due process claim–COA observes that “[n]one of these complaints seem to relate to the permanency plans.” (Id.). Moreover, K.R.’s briefs also violate many of the rules of appellate procedure and fail to develop a coherent argument as to why the circuit court erred. (¶7). Applying well-settled law, K.R.’s failure to adequately develop his legal arguments means that COA is forced to affirm. (¶8).
