by admin
on January 2, 2024
State v. S.H., 2023AP1786, 12/19/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.H. raises a very specific challenge to the order terminating her parental rights to her son, H.C.: that the circuit court failed to consider the age of H.C.’s foster mother with regard to the best interests of the child at disposition. The court of appeals rejects the challenge, and S.H.’s reliance on several prospective adoption cases, because the focus in the TPR context is whether the child is adoptable and whether the TPR would provide stability and permanence to the child, not on “whether a proposed adoptive resource is going to be approved in later proceedings.” Op., ¶19. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 29, 2023
State v. S.F., 2023AP1699, 1702-1705, 12/12/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In an all-around sad TPR appeal, S.F. (“Sabrina”) challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that grounds existed to terminate and (2) the court’s discretionary decision to terminate her parental rights to her five children. Despite the fact that neither court doubted Sabrina’s love and affection for her children, the court of appeals affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 28, 2023
Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 22, 2023
Douglas County v. J.M., 2022AP2035, 11/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“James” was subjected to a guardianship under ch. 54 and a protective placement under ch. 55 in 2020. He had annual reviews of placement in 2021 and 2022; the last one is the subject of this appeal. James argues that the county was obligated to put on medical expert testimony to meet its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he meets three of the elements for a protective placement (he does not dispute that he is an adult who’s been found incompetent, the remaining element). The court of appeals delves into the record of past hearings and holds that these older filings fill in the gaps. But isn’t the point of a due-process (Watts) review to determine how the person is doing now? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 19, 2023
Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2023AP863, 12/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another defense win reliant on Langlade County v. D.J.W., COA holds that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings in this Chapter 51 appeal.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 18, 2023
Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24, case activity (including briefs)
SCOW accepts a case poised to resolve ongoing conflict in COA with respect to involuntary medication orders in Chapter 51 appeals.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 11, 2023
Columbia County v. Carter Ray Smits, 2023AP241, 12/7/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the analyst’s testimony that, given the margin of error for the lab result, it was “equally likely” Smits was under as opposed to over the legal limit, COA affirms.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 8, 2023
State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.
[continue reading…]
{ }
