Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.
A.M.S. challenges order terminating her parental rights to four children following an adverse jury verdict. (¶1). Here, the State alleged the “continuing CHIPS” ground and there was only one disputed element at trial: whether the department made “reasonable effort” to provide services in connection with the CHIPS process. (¶14). On that point, A.M.S. appeals a number of evidentiary rulings which she argues precluded her from presenting what she believes was relevant evidence: (1) testimony regarding a formal grievance A.M.S. made against the Department; and (2) testimony about the fact that she herself had once been a child in need of protection or services. (¶16; ¶26). However, given the deferential nature of review–and the trial court’s proffered justifications for excluding this evidence–COA holds that A.M.S. has not established reversible error.
Moreover, while A.M.S. also argues that her lawyer was ineffective for not making a better record with respect to at least one of the evidentiary issues, COA relies on ineffectiveness case law establishing a broadly deferential review of counsel’s conduct and concludes that it did not fall outside the wide range of competent assistance. (¶50).
