TPR; competence; ineffective assistance; sufficiency of the evidence
Francine T. and Emiliano M. jointly appeal the trial court’s orders terminating their parental rights to Marcos M. and denying their postdisposition motions for remand and summary disposition. Francine and Emiliano jointly argue on appeal that the trial court lacked competence to terminate their parental rights because the court did not timely extend the child in need of protective services (“CHIPS”) dispositional order on which the termination of parental rights petition (“TPR”) was based. Emiliano alone argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that he had complied with the safety plan; and (2) that there was no factual basis for the trial court’s finding that Emiliano was unfit.
We reject Francine and Emiliano’s loss-of-competence argument because we conclude that their argument is a collateral attack on a previous final order and is barred. Furthermore, even if the argument was not barred, they lose on the merits because we conclude that the trial court properly extended the original CHIPS dispositional order for thirty days under Wis. Stat. § 48.365(6) (2005-06) and then properly tolled the thirty-day extension under Wis. Stat. § 48.315(1) (2005-06).
Finally, we conclude that Emiliano’s trial counsel was not ineffective because he made a reasonable strategic choice in not limiting his defense strategy to Emiliano’s compliance with the safety plan and that there was no reasonable possibility of a different outcome had he done otherwise. Finally, the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that Emiliano was unfit. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.
2010AP2596, 2010AP3140 In re the termination of parental rights to Marcos M., et al.
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Murray, J., Brennan, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Findley, Brian C., Darlington; For Respondent: Havas, Michelle Ackerman, Milwaukee; Schmieder, Theresa J., Green Bay