COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

April 16, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

Cir. Ct. Nos. 2022TP64

2022TP65

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

APPEAL NO. 2024AP180

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO N.M.S., A PERSON UNDER 

THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

J.S.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

2

APPEAL NO. 2024AP181

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO N.S., A PERSON UNDER 

THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

J.S.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

MARSHALL B. MURRAY, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 DONALD, P.J.1 Julia appeals from circuit court orders terminating 

her parental rights to her children, Nathan and Neil.2 Julia argues the circuit court 

lacked personal jurisdiction over herself because she was not personally served the 

summons and petitions for the termination of her parental rights. Julia also 

contends the circuit court erred by accepting the substitution request of Judge 

Joseph R. Wall made by the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) because the GAL 

had previously waived the right to substitution and failed to comply with the 

 

1

 These appeals are decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2021-

22). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 

2

 For ease of reading, the family in this confidential matter is referred to using 

pseudonyms. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(g).
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

3

requirements for substitution laid out in WIS. STAT. § 48.29(1). For the following 

reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s orders. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 On April 1, 2022, the State filed petitions to terminate Julia’s 

parental rights to Nathan and Neil. The State made three unsuccessful attempts to 

personally serve Julia and filed an affidavit of non-service. The State also mailed 

a copy of the summons and the petitions to Julia. 

¶3 On April 13, 2022, the parties attended an initial appearance before 

Judge Ellen R. Brostrom. Julia and her attorney were present. The circuit court 

asked Julia if she had received a copy of the petitions and Julia replied that she had 

just obtained a copy that morning from the State Public Defender’s Office. As a 

result, Julia explained that she had not had enough time to fully discuss all of the 

issues regarding her right of substitution with her attorney and requested an 

adjournment to do so. The circuit court granted her request. At the adjourned 

initial appearance on April 25, 2022, the GAL waived the right of substitution.

¶4 On June 10, 2022, the circuit court held a scheduling conference to 

schedule a final pretrial and jury trial. The circuit court and the parties were 

unable to schedule a date through October of 2022. At that point, the GAL stated 

that she wanted to ask for a substitution in order to find an earlier date. The circuit 

court notified the parties that this case would be transferred to Judge Wall at the 

beginning of August.3 Since the circuit court was unable to find a trial date on 

 

3

 Milwaukee County circuit court judges are periodically rotated among different circuit 

court divisions. In 2022, judicial rotation occurred on August 1.
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

4

Judge Wall’s calendar and the GAL exercised her right of substitution, the circuit 

court scheduled a scheduling conference on Judge Marshall B. Murray’s calendar 

for July 1, 2022, to find a trial date. Julia noted and the circuit court 

acknowledged that Julia was not waiving her ten days to object to the substitution

of Judge Wall. However, Julia never objected.

¶5 On August 29, 2022, the State filed amended petitions to terminate 

Julia’s parental rights for Nathan and Neil. The State served the amended 

petitions on Julia’s attorney and mailed them to Julia. The State did not attempt to 

personally serve Julia. In the amended petitions, the State added commission of a 

serious felony against one of the person’s children under WIS. STAT.

§ 48.415(9m)(b)2. as a ground for the petitions after Julia was convicted of firstdegree child sexual assault, as a party to a crime, of Neil under WIS. STAT.

§ 948.02(1)(e). 

¶6 At the hearing on the amended petitions on November 21, 2022, 

Julia noted that she believed that personal service of the amended petitions was 

required. The circuit court considered that Julia’s attorney had received the

amended petitions and that Julia had discussed them with her attorney, and found 

service on Julia’s attorney sufficient. The circuit court then granted the State’s 

motion for partial summary judgment on the commission of a serious felony 

against one of the person’s children ground and found Julia unfit. At the 

dispositional hearing on March 23, 2023, after considering all of the evidence 

presented, the circuit court concluded that termination of Julia’s parental rights 

was in the best interests of Nathan and Neil. 

¶7 Julia now appeals the circuit court’s orders. 
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

5

DISCUSSION

¶8 The questions on appeal are whether the circuit court erred by 

accepting the GAL’s substitution of Judge Wall and whether the circuit court had 

personal jurisdiction over Julia. Julia argues that the circuit court erred by 

accepting the GAL’s substitution request because the GAL had previously waived 

the right to substitution and the GAL’s request did not comply with the 

requirements set out in WIS. STAT. § 48.29(1). Julia also argues that the circuit 

court lacked personal jurisdiction because Julia was never personally served a 

summons, the petitions, and the amended petitions.

4

 We take each argument in 

turn.

¶9 The GAL contends that Julia forfeited her argument regarding the 

circuit court’s decision to accept the GAL’s substitution of Judge Wall because 

Julia never raised any objections to the substitution before the circuit court. We 

agree with the GAL.

¶10 “It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that issues must be 

preserved at the circuit court. Issues that are not preserved at the circuit court, 

even alleged constitutional errors, generally will not be considered on appeal.” 

State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, ¶10, 235 Wis. 2d 486, 611 N.W.2d 727. This 

principle serves a number of important objectives that promote efficiency and 

fairness. Id., ¶¶11-12. It spurs attorneys to raise issues before the circuit court 

 

4

 Additionally, Julia argues for the first time in her reply brief that the circuit court erred 

by not deciding whether it had personal jurisdiction over Julia sua sponte at the April 13, 2022 

hearing. In support of her argument, Julia points to case law discussing subject matter 

jurisdiction. We decline to address this argument. See Bilda v. County of Milwaukee, 2006 WI 

App 57, ¶20 n.7, 292 Wis. 2d 212, 713 N.W.2d 661 (“It is a well-established rule that we do not 

consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

6

which “allows the [circuit] court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first 

place,” “encourages attorneys to diligently prepare for and conduct trials,” and 

“prevents attorneys from ... failing to object to an error for strategic reasons and 

later claim[] that the error is grounds for reversal.” Id., ¶12. “The party who 

raises an issue on appeal bears the burden of showing that the issue was raised 

before the circuit court.” Id., ¶10.

¶11 Julia never objected to the GAL’s substitution of Judge Wall before 

the circuit court despite confirming with the circuit court that she had the 

opportunity to do so if she wished to.5 Julia also does not provide an explanation 

for why this court should consider her argument despite her failure to preserve it. 

We conclude that Julia forfeited her right to raise this argument on appeal.

¶12 Julia also argues that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction 

over herself because the State failed to personally serve the summons and original 

petitions on her. The State and the GAL maintain that the circuit court had 

personal jurisdiction because Julia submitted to the circuit court’s jurisdiction. See

WIS. STAT. § 48.42(4)(a) (stating “a copy of the summons and petition shall be 

served personally upon the parties .... Service of summons is not required if the 

party submits to the jurisdiction of the court.”).

¶13 “Parental rights termination proceedings under Chapter 48 are civil 

proceedings,” so the code of civil procedure applies “unless a ‘different procedure 

is prescribed by statute or rule.’” Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶32, 271 

Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856 (quoting WIS. STAT. § 801.01(2)). Challenges to a 

 

5

 Julia concedes in her brief that she neither objected to the GAL’s substitution request 

nor requested a substitution herself. 
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

7

court’s personal jurisdiction can be forfeited. Studelska v. Avercamp, 178 Wis. 2d 

457, 462, 504 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1993). See also WIS. STAT. § 48.297(2) 

(“Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of proceedings ... 

shall be raised not later than [ten] days after the plea hearing or be deemed 

waived.”).

¶14 Julia claims that, at the November 21, 2022 hearing, she preserved

her argument that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over her because 

the summons and original petitions were not served on her. However, after 

reviewing the record, we find that Julia never objected to the service of the

summons and petitions.

¶15 At the November 21, 2022 hearing, Julia’s attorney raised the issue 

that Julia had not received the amended petitions. Counsel for the State responded 

that the amended petitions were mailed but personal service was not attempted. 

The GAL noted that the State’s service of the amended petitions on Julia’s 

attorney was sufficient because she was the attorney of record in an ongoing civil 

case. The circuit court then asked if anyone else wished to be heard on this issue. 

Julia’s attorney responded with the following: “[f]or the record, I would just note 

that [Julia] has not been served and I believe that service of the amended petition 

is required.” Thus, it is clear that Julia preserved her argument regarding the 

service of the amended petitions. However, she never raised any issues with the 

service of the summons and original petitions at this hearing or at any prior or 

subsequent hearings.

¶16 Julia fully participated in the circuit court proceedings by attending 

the hearings with her attorney and by following the circuit court’s orders. 

Additionally, Julia never objected to the service of the summons and original 
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

8

petitions. Therefore, Julia forfeited this argument on appeal. See Huebner, 235 

Wis. 2d 486, ¶10.

¶17 Finally, Julia argues that the service of the amended petitions on 

Julia’s attorney was improper service depriving the circuit court of personal 

jurisdiction. The State and GAL argue that the service of the amended petitions 

on Julia’s attorney sufficed under WIS. STAT. § 801.14(2). 

¶18 Jurisdiction is determined at the time an action is commenced, so “it 

is not necessary that an amended [petition] comply with subsequently imposed 

jurisdictional requirements.” J.F. Ahern Co. v. Wisconsin State Bldg. Comm’n, 

114 Wis. 2d 69, 80, 336 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1983). There is no requirement 

that personal jurisdiction must be re-conferred when an amended petition is filed. 

Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, 198 Wis. 2d 347, 362-63, 

541 N.W.2d 824 (Ct. App. 1995) (“[T]here [is] no need to re-confer personal 

jurisdiction ... via the service of an amended summons upon the person[.]”). 

Therefore, the State was not required to personally serve Julia the amended 

petitions.

¶19 Furthermore, service of the amended petitions on Julia’s attorney 

was appropriate. Under WIS. STAT. § 801.14(2), “[w]henever ... service of 

pleadings and other papers is required or permitted to be made upon a party 

represented by an attorney, the service shall be made upon the attorney unless 

service upon the party in person is ordered by the court.” (Emphasis added.) 

“[T]he black-letter law is that once an action has begun and the attorney has 

appeared in the action on behalf of a party, service of papers may be upon the 

attorney.” Gangler v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 110 Wis. 2d 649, 657, 

329 N.W.2d 186 (1983). Therefore, service of the amended petitions on Julia’s 
Nos. 2024AP180

2024AP181

9

attorney instead of on Julia did not deprive the circuit court of personal 

jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

¶20 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Julia forfeited her 

arguments regarding the GAL’s substitution of Judge Wall and the service of the 

summons and original petitions. Additionally, we conclude that service of the 

amended petitions on Julia’s attorney did not deprive the circuit court of personal 

jurisdiction over Julia. Therefore, we affirm the orders of the circuit court.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.