Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms.
Mary first argues her counsel should have objected when the county introduced evidence about the incident that first let to Carrie being removed from her care–at a restaurant, Carrie seemed to be in serious physical distress and Mary and made statements about harming both herself and the child. Mary argues these events didn’t go toward proving any element of the grounds the county had alleged for termination: continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility.
The circuit court and the court of appeals disagree. The lower court noted one CHIPS element required the county to show it made reasonable efforts to provide services to Mary, and said that evidence about her history with her daughter was relevant to this question. The court of appeals adopts this reasoning. (¶21). The court of appeals also does not fault trial counsel for failing to object during opening statements when the state named witnesses it ultimately did not call; the court says counsel could not have known this would occur and so couldn’t have known to object. (¶15).
Mary next says her lawyer should have crossed a state’s witness, a social worker, about her relationship with her daughter and her efforts to comply with her responsibilities as a parent. This fails because counsel offers a strategic reason: that in his view at the time, the social worker’s responses to such questions were likely to be more harmful to Mary than beneficial. (¶¶27-28).
