Manitowoc County HSD v. K.R. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •        COURT OF APPEALS
    DECISION                                    NOTICE
    DATED AND FILED                This opinion is subject to further editing. If
    published, the official version will appear in
    the bound volume of the Official Reports.
    December 27, 2023
    A party may file with the Supreme Court a
    Samuel A. Christensen      petition to review an adverse decision by the
    Clerk of Court of Appeals   Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
    and RULE 809.62.
    Appeal Nos.       2022AP1975                                        Cir. Ct. Nos. 2019JC133
    2019JC134
    2022AP1976                                                      2019JC135
    2022AP1977                                                      2019JC136
    2022AP1978
    STATE OF WISCONSIN                                 IN COURT OF APPEALS
    DISTRICT II
    No. 2022AP1975
    IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.R., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:
    MANITOWOC COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V.
    K.R.,
    RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    No. 2022AP1976
    IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.R., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:
    MANITOWOC COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    V.
    K.R.,
    RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    No. 2022AP1977
    IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.R., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:
    MANITOWOC COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V.
    K.R.,
    RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    No. 2022AP1978
    IN THE INTEREST OF G.H.R., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:
    MANITOWOC COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V.
    K.R.,
    RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    2
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Manitowoc County:
    MARK R. ROHRER and JERILYN M. DIETZ, Judges. Affirmed.
    ¶1      GUNDRUM, P.J.1 In these consolidated appeals, K.R. appeals
    from November 2022 orders of the circuit court amending the permanency plans
    for his children, J.R., C.R., E.R., and G.R., under children in need of protection or
    services [CHIPS] dispositional orders.2 For the following reasons, we affirm.
    Background
    ¶2      On December 20, 2019, Manitowoc County Human Services
    Department took physical custody of K.R.’s children and three days later filed
    requests for temporary physical custody as well as CHIPS petitions alleging they
    were in need of protection or services pursuant to WIS. STAT. §§ 48.13(3m) and
    48.13(10m), respectively relating to K.R.’s children being at substantial risk of
    abuse and neglect. A court commissioner granted the requests for temporary
    physical custody.       On December 23, 2019, the County filed a petition for
    protection or services for each of the children.
    ¶3      On February 18, 2020, the County filed a permanency plan, and in
    June 2020, it filed another such plan in each of the cases. Also in June 2020, the
    County filed amended CHIPS petitions and/or second amended CHIPS petitions
    alleging jurisdiction under WIS. STAT. § 48.13(4) after K.R. entered a no contest
    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
    The Honorable Jerilyn M. Dietz presiding as to C.R., E.R., and G.R. and the Honorable
    Mark R. Rohrer presiding as to J.R. Throughout this opinion, our use of “the circuit court” and
    “the court” sometimes refers one court and sometimes to both courts.
    3
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    plea. Jurisdiction under § 48.13(4) is established when a “parent or guardian signs
    the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is unable or needs
    assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child.”
    On June 25, 2020, the circuit court entered dispositional orders that transferred
    legal custody of K.R.’s children to the County and adopted the conditions for
    return enumerated in the County’s amended disposition reports. K.R. did not
    contest the disposition of his children.
    ¶4     On December 7, 2020, the circuit court adopted and ordered
    permanency plans with regard to K.R.’s children.         On January 21, 2021, the
    County requested to amend the dispositional orders to suspend K.R.’s visitation
    with his children due to concerns with his behavior. Following hearings, the court
    granted the County’s request and suspended K.R.’s visitation. The court held
    hearings to extend the dispositional order of J.R. on July 12, 2021, and the
    dispositional orders of C.R., E.R., and G.R. on July 20, 2021. The court extended
    the orders and held that K.R.’s visitation should continue to be suspended.
    ¶5     In October 2022, the County filed requests to review the permanency
    plans in each of the cases. On November 8, 2022, the court held a hearing for
    C.R., E.R., and G.R. and a separate hearing for J.R. That same day, the court
    entered amended permanency plans for C.R., E.R., and G.R., and on November 9,
    the court entered an amended permanency plan for J.R. The docket sheet in each
    of the cases indicates that all of the parties agreed that the court should adopt the
    permanency plans. K.R. did not file transcripts from the November hearings.
    K.R. appeals from the November 2022 permanency plans.
    4
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    Discussion
    ¶6      As the County notes in its response brief, “[i]t is entirely unclear the
    basis on which K.R. is challenging the [p]ermanency [p]lans” as his brief “is a
    jumbled word salad without connection to law, fact, or reality.” K.R. complains
    that he was discriminated on the basis of his sex and disability, his right to due
    process was violated, the court failed to appoint him a guardian ad litem, and the
    court prohibited his guardian from attending hearings. None of these complaints
    seem to relate to the permanency plans.3 As we stated in a May 10, 2023 order,
    “Our review in this case is limited to the circuit court’s November 2022 orders
    instituting permanency plans for [K.R.’s] children J.R., C.R., E.R, and G.R.”
    ¶7      Additionally, K.R.’s briefs do not comply with several rules of
    appellate procedure. K.R.’s moving brief fails to include a “statement of the
    issues presented for review and how the [circuit] court decided them,” a statement
    of the case, including “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for
    review, with appropriate references to the record,” and a signature as required by
    WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(b), (d) and (h). Although K.R. cites to limited statute
    sections in WIS. STAT. ch. 48, he fails to cite any other legal authority and fails to
    support his arguments with the statutes or citations to the record, which is
    3
    The record on appeal does not contain the transcripts of the permanency plan hearings.
    As the appellant, it was K.R.’s “responsibility to ensure completion of the appellate record.” See
    Gaethke v. Pozder, 
    2017 WI App 38
    , ¶36, 
    376 Wis. 2d 448
    , 
    899 N.W.2d 381
     (citation omitted).
    “[I]n the absence of a transcript we presume that every fact essential to sustain the circuit court’s
    decision is supported by the record.” Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 
    2007 WI App 5
    , ¶35, 
    298 Wis. 2d 468
    , 
    727 N.W.2d 546
     (2006). Thus, even if K.R.’s complaints somehow relate to the
    permanency plans, we would assume the missing transcripts support the circuit court’s rulings.
    See 
    id.
    5
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    required. See RULE 809.19(1)(e) (an appellant must support his or her arguments
    “with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on”). An
    appellant must develop his or her arguments by applying the legal authorities cited
    to the facts of the case. See 
    id.
     Although K.R. is pro se, his briefs must still
    comply with these procedural requirements. See Waushara County v. Graf, 
    166 Wis. 2d 442
    , 452, 
    480 N.W.2d 16
     (1992) (“Pro se appellants must satisfy all
    procedural requirements, unless those requirements are waived by the court. They
    are bound by the same rules that apply to attorneys on appeal.”).
    ¶8     On appeal, it is the appellant’s (here K.R.’s) burden to demonstrate
    that the circuit court erred. See Gaethke v. Pozder, 
    2017 WI App 38
    , ¶36, 
    376 Wis. 2d 448
    , 
    899 N.W.2d 381
    .           K.R. fails to develop any arguments to
    demonstrate how the circuit court erred, and “[w]e will not address undeveloped
    arguments.” See Clean Wis., Inc. v. PSC, 
    2005 WI 93
    , ¶180 n.40, 
    282 Wis. 2d 250
    , 
    700 N.W.2d 768
    ; see also State v. Pettit, 
    171 Wis. 2d 627
    , 646, 
    492 N.W.2d 633
     (Ct. App. 1992) (an appellate court may decline to review issues that are
    insufficiently briefed or unsupported by legal authority).      An appellate judge
    cannot properly serve as both advocate and judge, see id. at 647, and thus, it is
    inappropriate for us to “abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for K.R.,
    see Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 
    2009 WI App 62
    ,
    ¶25, 
    318 Wis. 2d 148
    , 
    769 N.W.2d 82
    . See also Doe 1 v. Madison Metro. Sch.
    Dist., 
    2022 WI 65
    , ¶35, 
    403 Wis. 2d 369
    , 
    976 N.W.2d 584
     (“[Appellate courts] do
    not step out of our neutral role to develop or construct arguments for parties; it is
    up to them to make their case.” (citation omitted)). Having failed to develop any
    legal arguments to demonstrate how the circuit court may have erred, K.R. has
    failed to meet his burden as the appellant; thus, we affirm.
    6
    Nos. 2022AP1975
    2022AP1976
    2022AP1977
    2022AP1978
    By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
    This      opinion   will   not       be   published.   See   WIS. STAT.
    RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2022AP001975, 2022AP001976, 2022AP001977, 2022AP001978

Filed Date: 12/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/9/2024