COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

September 12, 2023

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 No. 2022AP1329 Cir. Ct. No. 2021TP102

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO B.W., A PERSON UNDER THE 

AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

B.W.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

ELLEN R. BROSTROM, Judge. Affirmed. 
No. 2022AP1329

2

¶1 DONALD, P.J.1 B.W. appeals an order of the circuit court 

terminating his parental rights to his son, Bob.

2

 On appeal, B.W. contends that he 

is entitled to plea withdrawal because the circuit court failed to ensure that he 

understood the correct standard the court would rely on at the dispositional

hearing. In addition, B.W. contends that he is entitled to a new dispositional

hearing because the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in finding 

that the termination of B.W.’s parental rights was in Bob’s best interests. For the 

reasons discussed below, I affirm. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 On May 14, 2021, the State filed a petition to terminate B.W.’s 

parental rights to Bob. The petition alleged that Bob was a child in continuing 

need of protection or services (continuing CHIPS), and that B.W. had failed to 

assume parental responsibility. 

¶3 Relevant to this appeal, on June 28, 2021, the circuit court held an 

adjourned initial appearance on the petition. During the hearing, the circuit court 

explained B.W.’s rights during the grounds phase and his rights during the 

dispositional phase. In particular, with regard to the dispositional phase, the court 

advised B.W. that:

So assuming for purposes of this explanation that it 

is found there is a legal reason or a ground to terminate 

your parental rights, as I said, then we would move to the 

second half, where the court would have to decide whether 

 

1

 This appeal is 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

 B.W. and his son share the same initials. I use the pseudonym “Bob” to refer to B.W.’s 

son for ease of reading. 
No. 2022AP1329

3

that’s actually in [Bob’s] best interest. Again, you could 

have a trial about that if you disagree. 

Now, there’s no right to a jury trial in the second 

half. It’s always just a trial to the judge, but all those same 

trial rights would rise up again. So it’s the State that would 

have to prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory 

evidence that it’s in [Bob’s] best interest that the court 

terminate your parental rights.

¶4 On March 2, 2022, B.W. entered a no contest plea to the continuing 

CHIPS ground. During the hearing, the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: Now, you understand that nobody can force 

you to plead no contest to the grounds phase in this case, 

right? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: You have an absolute [sic] to a trial. It 

could be a jury trial which we have set next week, or it 

could be a trial just to the Judge. Do you understand that? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: If you go forward with the jury trial, it’s a 

12-person jury. And 10 out of 12 have to agree in order to 

reach a decision. Does that make sense? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: But either way, it’s the State’s burden to 

prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to a 

reasonable certainty that the grounds exist. And the State 

would try to do that by calling witnesses to the stand. They 

would testify under oath. You would have a right to crossexamine them, and the right to introduce your own 

evidence. The right to use subpoenas to require witnesses 

to come to court and testify for you. Also the right to 

testify yourself or remain silent knowing silence can be 

used against you. Do you understand that by pleading no 

contest you’re giving up all those trial rights to the first half 

of the case? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: Now, that does not mean you’re giving up 

your trial rights to the second half of the case. And that’s 

what we call disposition. And at that hearing, the [c]ourt 
No. 2022AP1329

4

would have to decide if it’s in the child’s best interest to 

actually terminate your parental rights. Does that make 

sense? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: And at all those same trial rights then you 

would have again [sic] in that second half, it’s just a trial to 

the Judge in that second half. Does that match your 

understanding? 

B.W.: Yes.

¶5 After explaining the specific elements of the continuing CHIPS 

ground, the circuit court then stated:

THE COURT: Now, assuming I accept your no contest 

plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, I will then take 

some brief testimony to make sure there’s a[] factual basis 

for it. And then by statute I will be required to find you 

unfit as a parent as to [Bob]. Do you understand I’ll have 

to make that finding? 

B.W.: Yes. 

THE COURT: However, if I do not terminate your 

parental rights, if I do not find that to be in [Bob’s] best 

interest, the termination of parental rights petition will be 

dismissed, and that unfitness finding will be reversed or 

vacated, okay? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Now, at that second half of the case, the 

disposition, I basically have two choices. Either I find it’s 

in [Bob’s] best interest to terminate your parental rights, 

and I do so. Or I do not find that, and I dismiss the TPR 

petition. Does that make sense? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am.

¶6 At the dispositional hearing, testimony was presented from D.D., the 

proposed adoptive resource who shares a child with B.W. D.D. testified that Bob 

had been living with her for a little over two years and she planned to adopt Bob if 

the court ordered termination of B.W.’s parental rights. She further stated that if 
No. 2022AP1329

5

B.W.’s rights were terminated, she expected Bob to continue to have contact with 

B.W. Testimony was also presented from two cases managers, a program 

manager for supervised visitation, one of B.W.’s family members, and B.W. 

¶7 On April 13, 2022, after the completion of evidence and argument, 

the court found that it was in Bob’s best interests to terminate B.W.’s parental 

rights. 

¶8 B.W. filed a post-disposition motion to withdraw his no contest plea. 

B.W. alleged that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the 

circuit court improperly explained the statutory standard it would apply at the 

dispositional hearing. 

¶9 At a hearing on January 18, 2023, the circuit court denied B.W.’s

motion without an evidentiary hearing.

3

 The court found that B.W. failed to make 

a prima facie case that there was a defect in the plea colloquy. This appeal 

follows. Additional relevant facts will be discussed below. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 On appeal, B.W. contends that he is entitled to plea withdrawal 

because the circuit court failed to ensure that he understood the correct standard 

the court would rely on at the dispositional hearing. In addition, B.W. contends 

that he is entitled to a new dispositional hearing because the circuit court 

erroneously exercised its discretion in finding that the termination of B.W.’s 

parental rights was in Bob’s best interests. I address each issue in turn. 

 

3

 The Honorable Ellen R. Brostrom presided over B.W.’s plea and the dispositional 

hearing. The Honorable Joseph R. Wall presided over the post-disposition motion hearing. 
No. 2022AP1329

6

I. Plea Withdrawal

¶11 When a parent alleges that a plea was not knowingly, intelligently,

and voluntarily entered, we use the analysis set forth in State v. Bangert, 131 

Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). See Oneida Cnty. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 

WI App 159, ¶6, 314 Wis. 2d 493, 762 N.W.2d 122. Under Bangert, a postdisposition motion “must make a prima facie showing that the circuit court 

violated its mandatory duties and must allege the parent did not know or 

understand the information that should have been provided at the hearing.” 

Therese S., 314 Wis. 2d 493, ¶6; State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶39, 293 Wis. 2d 

594, 716 N.W.2d 906. 

¶12 If a motion establishes a prima facie violation of a court mandated 

duty and makes the requisite allegations, “the court must hold a postconviction

evidentiary hearing[.]” Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶40. At the evidentiary hearing, 

the burden shifts to the State “to show by clear and convincing evidence that the 

... plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite the identified inadequacy 

of the plea colloquy.” Id. 

¶13 Whether a parent has presented a prima facie case by pointing to a 

deficiency in the plea colloquy and has sufficiently alleged that he or she did not 

know or understand information that should have been provided is a question of 

law that we review de novo. Therese S., 314 Wis. 2d 493, ¶7.

¶14 At issue in this case is the first step of the Bangert analysis. B.W. 

contends that he has made a prima facie showing entitling him to an evidentiary 

hearing. In response, the State and Guardian ad Litem (GAL) contend that B.W. 

failed to make a prima facie showing that the court violated its mandatory duties 

when it accepted B.W.’s plea. I agree with the State and GAL. 
No. 2022AP1329

7

¶15 As a preliminary matter, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 48.426(2), the 

“best interests of the child shall be the prevailing factor considered by the court in 

determining the disposition” in a termination of parental rights case. The plain 

language of the statute does not set a burden of proof. 

¶16 B.W. contends that the circuit court here incorrectly informed him at 

the dispositional hearing that “the State would have to demonstrate by ‘clear, 

convincing and satisfactory evidence to a reasonable certainty’ that termination of 

B.W.’s rights was appropriate.” While it is true that B.W. was misadvised during 

the adjourned initial appearance on the petition regarding the standard at a 

dispositional hearing, the circuit court did not misadvise B.W. at the plea hearing. 

¶17 At the plea hearing, the circuit court stated that:

THE COURT: Now, that does not mean you’re giving up 

your trial rights to the second half of the case. And that’s 

what we call disposition. And at that hearing, the [c]ourt 

would have to decide if it’s in the child’s best interest to 

actually terminate your parental rights. Does that make 

sense? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 

THE COURT: And at all those same trial rights then you 

would have again [sic] in that second half, it’s just a trial to 

the Judge in that second half. Does that match your 

understanding? 

B.W.: Yes.

(Emphasis added.) Subsequently, the court stated:

THE COURT: Now, assuming I accept your no contest 

plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, I will then take 

some brief testimony to make sure there’s a[] factual basis 

for it. And then by statute I will be required to find you 

unfit as a parent as to [Bob]. Do you understand I’ll have 

to make that finding? 

B.W.: Yes. 
No. 2022AP1329

8

THE COURT: However, if I do not terminate your 

parental rights, if I do not find that to be in [Bob’s] best 

interest, the termination of parental rights petition will be 

dismissed, and that unfitness finding will be reversed or 

vacated, okay? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Now, at that second half of the case, the 

disposition, I basically have two choices. Either I find it’s 

in [Bob’s] best interest to terminate your parental rights, 

and I do so. Or I do not find that, and I dismiss the TPR 

petition. Does that make sense? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the record reflects that the circuit court did not advise

B.W. during the plea hearing that the State would have to demonstrate by clear, 

convincing, and satisfactory evidence that termination of B.W.’s rights was 

appropriate at the dispositional hearing. Rather, the circuit court simply advised 

B.W. that the court would have to decide whether it was in the child’s best interest 

to terminate B.W.’s rights. This complies with the statutory requirement set forth 

in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(2). 

¶18 In support of his argument, B.W. points to the circuit court’s 

discussion of the grounds phase during the plea colloquy:

THE COURT: But either way, it’s the State’s burden to 

prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to a 

reasonable certainty that the grounds exist. And the State 

would try to do that by calling witnesses to the stand. They 

would testify under oath. You would have a right to crossexamine them, and the right to introduce your own 

evidence. The right to use subpoenas to require witnesses 

to come to court and testify for you. Also the right to 

testify yourself or remain silent knowing silence can be 

used against you. Do you understand that by pleading no 

contest you’re giving up all those trial rights to the first half 

of the case? 

B.W.: Yes, ma’am. 
No. 2022AP1329

9

(Emphasis added.) B.W. then notes that the court later stated that “all those same 

trial rights then you would have again [sic] in that second half.” 

¶19 At no point, however, did the circuit court describe the State’s 

burden in the grounds phase as a “right.” The court stated that B.W. “would have 

a right to cross-examine [witnesses],” “the right to introduce your own evidence,” 

“the right to use subpoenas,” and “the right to testify yourself or remain silent.” 

As a result, based on the record, I am not persuaded that the circuit court 

misadvised B.W. during the plea colloquy regarding the standard that would be 

applied at the dispositional hearing. 

¶20 B.W. also relies on State v. A.G. (A.G. I), No. 2021AP1476, 

unpublished slip op. (WI App Feb. 15, 2022), where this court remanded for an 

evidentiary hearing in part because the circuit court improperly explained the 

standard that would apply at the dispositional hearing.

4 A.G. I, however, is 

distinguishable. In A.G. I, the circuit court expressly informed the parent that he 

had a “whole bunch” of rights in the grounds phase including “the right to force 

the State to prove the grounds by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to a 

reasonable certainty” and later told the parent that he would “have all those same 

 

4

 After State v. A.G. (A.G. I), No. 2021AP1476, unpublished slip op. (WI App Feb. 15, 

2022), was remanded for an evidentiary hearing, the case returned to this court and plea 

withdrawal was granted. See State v. A.G. (A.G. II), 2022AP652, unpublished slip op. (WI App 

July 12, 2022). Subsequently, while B.W.’s appeal was pending, the supreme court granted 

review in A.G. II, and this court stayed B.W.’s appeal. After the supreme court decision in 

A.G. II was released, see id., 2023 WI 61, 408 Wis. 2d 413, 992 N.W.2d 75, this court ordered 

the parties to address what, if any, impact the supreme court decision had on this case. Based on 

my review of the supreme court decision and the supplemental briefs filed in this matter, I 

conclude that the supreme court decision is not relevant as it does not resolve the issue presented 

in this case. The lead opinion assumed, but did not decide, that the parent established a prima 

facie case. See id., ¶¶21, 32 n.5. Accordingly, because this case analyzes whether B.W. has 

established a prima facie case, I do not address A.G. II further and focus instead on A.G. I. 
No. 2022AP1329

10

trial rights today for that second half.” See id., ¶17. In contrast, here, as stated 

above, the circuit court never referred to the clear and convincing standard as a 

“trial right.” Accordingly, I do not find B.W.’s reliance on A.G. I persuasive. 

¶21 Therefore, I agree with the circuit court that B.W. failed to meet his 

prima facie burden and is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

II. Dispositional Hearing

¶22 A circuit court’s decision to terminate a parent’s rights is 

discretionary. Gerald O. v. Cindy R., 203 Wis. 2d 148, 152, 551 N.W.2d 855 

(Ct. App. 1996). “A circuit court properly exercises its discretion when it 

examines the relevant facts, applies a proper standard of law, and using a 

demonstrated rational process reaches a conclusion that a reasonable judge could 

reach.” Dane Cnty. DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶39, 346 Wis. 2d 396, 828 

N.W.2d 198. 

¶23 When deciding whether termination is warranted, a circuit court 

“shall consider,” but is not limited to, the following factors:

(a) The likelihood of the child’s adoption after termination.

(b) The age and health of the child, both at the time of the 

disposition and, if applicable, at the time the child was 

removed from the home.

(c) Whether the child has substantial relationships with the 

parent or other family members, and whether it would be 

harmful to the child to sever these relationships.

(d) The wishes of the child.

(e) The duration of the separation of the parent from the 

child.

(f) Whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable 

and permanent family relationship as a result of the 
No. 2022AP1329

11

termination, taking into account the conditions of the 

child’s current placement, the likelihood of future 

placements and the results of prior placements.

WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). 

¶24 B.W. contends that the circuit court “inadequately considered 

whether severance of [B.W.’s and Bob’s] relationship would be harmful” at the 

dispositional hearing. 

¶25 At the dispositional hearing, the circuit court discussed D.D.’s 

testimony that she would continue to allow B.W. to have contact with Bob if 

B.W.’s parental rights were terminated. The court stated:

And given that you and [D.D.] have a child in common, 

you guys already coparent, I’m trusting that you guys will 

continue to do so. And as you continue with your stability 

and sobriety, the further you get into that, the safer you’ll 

be for overnight visits, for really meaningfully coparenting 

even if the legal relationship is severed, and I found 

[D.D.’s] testimony to be credible that she would do that.

Later in the court’s remarks, the court stated that Bob had “a substantial 

relationship” with B.W. The court, however, stated that any harm from severing 

the legal relationship “will be mitigated by the coparenting circumstances ... just 

described.” 

¶26 B.W. argues that the circuit court failed to consider that D.D.’s 

testimony that she would allow for continued contact was an unenforceable 

promise and did not address the impact if the contact were to stop. 

¶27 As B.W. acknowledges, in State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶29, 

234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, our supreme court specifically stated that a 

circuit court may consider an adoptive resource’s promise to continue to allow 

visitation. Margaret H., however, does not impose any requirement that a circuit 
No. 2022AP1329

12

court specifically declare on the record that the promise is unenforceable. Rather, 

Margaret H. only states that if the circuit court considers such a promise, the court 

needs to “[bear] in mind that such promises are legally unenforceable once the 

termination and subsequent adoption are complete.” Id., ¶30. B.W. does not 

identify any language in the record indicating that the circuit court incorrectly 

believed that D.D.’s promise was legally enforceable. 

¶28 In addition, B.W. contends that the circuit court mischaracterized 

what would happen after termination as “co[]parenting.” B.W. observes that the 

termination of parental rights results in “a legal severance of the relationship” and 

a parent does not have any authority to make any parental decisions. The record, 

however, does not reflect that the court was using the term “coparenting” in the 

legal sense. The court specifically referenced severing the legal relationship. 

Thus, I reject B.W.’s arguments and conclude that the circuit court properly 

exercised its discretion at the dispositional hearing. 

¶29 Therefore, in sum, for all of the reasons stated above, I affirm. 

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.