State v. B. A. J.

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.
April 2, 2026
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.
2025AP1476 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2022TP147
2022TP148
2025AP1477
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

APPEAL NO. 2025AP1476

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO L.R.P., A PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

B.A.J.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

APPEAL NO. 2025AP1477

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO D.P., JR., A
PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

B.A.J.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MARSHALL B. MURRAY, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 GEENEN, J.1 Bethany appeals from the circuit court’s orders
terminating her parental rights to two of her children, Lydia and Daniel, and
denying her postdisposition motion to withdraw the no contest pleas she entered as
to the grounds for termination in each case.2 Bethany argues that she was not
competent when she entered the pleas and therefore the pleas were not knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary. Because we conclude that Bethany did not meet her

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
2
For ease of reading and to protect the confidentiality of these proceedings, we use
pseudonyms to refer to all involved parties in this case.

2
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that plea withdrawal was
necessary to prevent manifest injustice, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The medical and court records in this case establish that Bethany has
suffered from various mental health conditions since childhood, including
oppositional defiance disorder, depression, ADHD, unspecified mood disorders,
and bipolar disorder. Bethany also has a history of drug addiction and has
previously been confined to a mental health facility under WIS. STAT. ch. 51.
Furthermore, on several occasions during the pendency of these termination of
parental rights (TPR) proceedings, Bethany was confined to jail in Milwaukee and
Sheboygan counties in unrelated matters, which resulted in delays in these TPR
cases and made it more difficult for Bethany to appear in court and to
communicate with her lawyer.

¶3 In 2022, the State filed petitions to terminate Bethany’s rights to
Lydia and Daniel. The TPR petitions alleged as grounds for termination that
Lydia and Daniel remained children in continuing need of protection or services
(CHIPS) pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2), and that Bethany had failed to
assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6). Bethany initially contested the
State’s allegations as to the grounds in both TPR petitions.3

3
Bethany’s non-appearance at hearings in the fall of 2022 resulted in the entry of default
against her, which resulted in orders terminating her parental rights. Those 2022 TPR orders
were vacated when the court learned that Bethany’s non-appearances occurred because she was
incarcerated in Sheboygan County.

3
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

¶4 After these cases were reopened, a hearing was scheduled for
March 7, 2023. Bethany was jailed at the time, and although the court had ordered
Bethany to appear, a sheriff’s deputy contacted the court and told the clerk that
Bethany “is not able to make it. She had a meltdown.” The record does not
contain any additional details about what the “meltdown” entailed. The hearing
was adjourned.

¶5 At the next status conference in May 2023, defense counsel
explained that Bethany was still jailed in Sheboygan County and would likely
remain so for an extended period, and that he only had one brief opportunity to
speak with Bethany. Counsel also explained that Bethany’s competency was
questioned in the Sheboygan County case. The court responded that “[i]f there is
an issue with her competency I think I need to know about it earlier,” and
indicated that it would require Bethany to appear in person at the next hearing.

¶6 Bethany appeared in person at the next status hearing, on June 13,
2023, with counsel. In light of their limited ability to meet prior to that hearing,
counsel asked, and the court permitted, counsel to speak with Bethany in person
after the hearing, before she returned to jail. After counsel’s discussion with
Bethany, the circuit court took the case back onto the record, and Bethany entered
no contest pleas to the failure to assume responsibility for the children grounds.

¶7 Before accepting the pleas, the court conducted a thorough colloquy
with Bethany. It asked questions to ascertain whether Bethany understood the
court proceedings and the rights she was waiving. It asked Bethany if she had
ever been diagnosed with a mental illness, to which she acknowledged only
diagnoses of ADHD and OCD in middle school. While Bethany’s response
minimized the mental health diagnoses in her medical history, the court asked no

4
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

further competency-related questions. At the end of the colloquy, Bethany
confirmed that she understood the rights she was waiving and reaffirmed that she
wanted to enter pleas of no contest to the grounds of failure to assume parental
responsibility.

¶8 The cases proceeded to dispositional hearing on September 22, 2023.
Though she was supposed to appear in person, there was an issue with the order to
produce, so Bethany appeared by Zoom. Bethany’s behavior was very different
than the prior hearing. Bethany disrupted the proceedings with a lengthy, rapid,
and rambling monologue during which she claimed that everyone was working
against her and that “they don’t want me in court today because I been raped and
stuff in prison and I said if I came to court today I would tell so they rescheduled
the court date on purpose and they didn’t even tell my mom what is going on.”

¶9 The hearing was rescheduled for October 4, 2023, but prior to the
rescheduled hearing, Bethany’s counsel filed a letter with the court expressing
doubts as to Bethany’s competency and requested that the court order a
competency evaluation for Bethany. Counsel also asked to withdraw because
Bethany no longer wanted him to represent her.

¶10 On October 4, 2023, the court addressed counsel’s withdrawal
request. Counsel indicated that he struggled to understand Bethany at times, that
she becomes angry, and that she did not want counsel representing her. Bethany
agreed, stated that “they are after me,” that she was “very scared” and repeated the
accusations about being raped and beaten while in custody. When asked by the
court if she had ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder, Bethany said
“ADHD, that’s all.” She also accused the children’s foster parents of cutting her
children’s hair in an “African style,” claimed that the foster father was present

5
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

when she was raped in jail, stated that her children’s fathers were “rich rappers”
and that one of the fathers had a “spaceship he brung [sic] to Sheboygan county.”

¶11 Although counsel was seeking to withdraw from the case, counsel
again expressed concern for Bethany’s competency going forward, and suggested
that vacating the no contest pleas may be appropriate if Bethany was found to be
not competent.

¶12 The court ordered a competency exam for purposes of determining
Bethany’s competency moving forward, but not to “determine if the no contest
plea[s were] knowing and voluntarily made” because “from the record,” the court
believed that [they were].” The court also granted counsel’s withdrawal motion
and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for Bethany, as well as replacement
counsel.

¶13 On October 17, 2023, the parties agreed to have Dr. Deborah Collins
evaluate Bethany “only to determine whether or not she can assist [her attorneys]
in preparing for her case and if she needed a [GAL].” Although Bethany’s
counsel and GAL both raised concerns about the competency evaluation and the
validity of the no contest pleas, the court stated that it had already decided the
issue and pointed to the “fairly good colloquy” with Bethany. The court observed
that Bethany had been “very calm,” that she had no questions when she entered
her pleas, and that she was represented by counsel as the basis for concluding that
“she understood what she was doing when she made the decision” to enter the
pleas.

¶14 Dr. Collins evaluated Bethany and filed a corresponding report in
November 2023. The competency evaluation concluded that “[Bethany] is
presently rendered to lack substantial mental capacity to understand factually and

6
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

rationally the pending proceedings or to be of meaningful assistance in her
behalf.” Dr. Collin’s indicated that Bethany is “laboring under paranoid,
persecutory, evident delusional beliefs” which “are intertwined with, and
distorting, her understanding of the matter before the court.” Dr. Collins
diagnosed Bethany with unspecified bipolar and related disorder with psychotic
symptoms and unknown substance abuse disorders.

¶15 In light of the report’s conclusions, counsel moved to adjourn the
dispositional hearing to explore whether Bethany was incompetent at the time of
her pleas and did not have a GAL to represent her best interest so that the pleas
should be withdrawn. At a pretrial conference on March 19, 2024, Bethany’s
counsel explained that she was still attempting to obtain medical records related to
the competency issues raised in the Sheboygan County criminal cases. Bethany’s
GAL also expressed “serious concerns that [Bethany] was able to make an
intelligent and knowing decision at the time of the entry of the no contest plea[s].”
The State and the children’s GAL opposed the motion.

¶16 The circuit court denied the motion and ordered the case to proceed
to the dispositional hearing. The court explained that “competency is not an issue
in a civil case where she is represented by counsel and counsel believed that she
was competent and said that her plea[s were] valid.” The court indicated that it
was not willing to “hold up this case for competency because she has a [GAL] for
the dispositional hearing[.]” It expressed reluctance to undermine prior counsel’s
assessment of Bethany’s ability to enter a plea, noted that Bethany’s competency
to enter the pleas was not raised by counsel until three months after she entered the
pleas, and recalled that Bethany’s answers and behavior during the colloquy were
appropriate. On that basis, the court concluded that Bethany knew what she was
doing when she entered her pleas.

7
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

¶17 Trial counsel subsequently obtained transcripts from the Sheboygan
County cases and filed a formal motion to withdraw the pleas in the TPR cases.
The court denied the motion, noting that despite the transcript’s references to
mental health issues, the Sheboygan County documents indicated that Bethany
was observed but not treated, diagnosed, or placed in a mental health institution,
and observed that the fact Bethany was sentenced indicates that the Sheboygan
County court determined that there was not a competency problem. It further
explained that, even if Bethany was incompetent, a trial would occur regardless,
and though Bethany was unable to assist in her own representation, a GAL would
act on her behalf and in her best interest.

¶18 The court immediately proceeded with the dispositional hearing, at
the conclusion of which, the circuit court concluded that terminating Bethany’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and Bethany’s parental rights
were terminated.

¶19 Bethany filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently requested
that this court remand the cases to the circuit court so that Bethany could pursue a
postdisposition motion to withdraw her pleas. We remanded the matters, and
Bethany filed a plea withdrawal motion and a supplemental report from
Dr. Collins regarding Bethany’s competency at the time her pleas were entered.
Bethany requested a hearing on the motion in the circuit court, which was
granted.4

4
Prior to the postdisposition motion hearing, the circuit court considered which standard
to apply to Bethany’s motion and whether she was challenging the circuit court’s denial of her
predisposition plea withdrawal motion, or whether Bethany was seeking postdisposition plea
withdrawal. The circuit court concluded that it was the latter, and that decision is not challenged
on appeal.

8
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

¶20 At the hearing on the motion, Dr. Collins acknowledged the
difficulties of retroactive assessments, and explained that her assessment was
based on three separate medical reports taken over a span of ten years, court
records, and an evaluation of Bethany. Dr. Collins concluded that there were
significant concerns about whether Bethany had been competent to enter a plea in
June 2023, but acknowledged that she could not say with certainty if Bethany was
competent or not competent at the time of the plea.

¶21 The postdisposition court concluded that Bethany had not met her
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that, because of her mental
health issues and history of psychosis, she was unable to comprehend the impact
of her pleas at the time of the pleas. It explained that Dr. Collins’ testimony was
not conclusive; that the Sheboygan County cases indicated that Bethany was
observed for concerns related to competency and it concluded that she was
competent; that Bethany’s March 2023 “meltdown” was not strong evidence of a
mental health issue because of the limited information about what actually
occurred; and that the indicators contemporaneous with the pleas—i.e. her conduct
and responses at the plea hearing—demonstrated that Bethany was competent at
that time.

¶22 The postdisposition court denied the motion to withdraw the pleas.
Bethany now appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

¶23 A party is entitled to postdisposition plea withdrawal only if he or
she establishes a “manifest injustice” by clear and convincing evidence. State v.

9
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 311, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). A plea was that was not
knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered may constitute a manifest injustice.
State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶24, 347 Wis. 2d 30, 829 N.W.2d 482. Whether a
plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is a question of
constitutional fact. State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶19, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716
N.W.2d 906. This court must “accept the circuit court’s findings of historical and
evidentiary facts unless they are clearly erroneous,” but the court determines
“independently whether those facts demonstrate that the [parent’s] plea was
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Id.

¶24 On appeal, Bethany argues that the circuit court erred when it found
that she failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she was not
competent to enter no contest pleas as to the grounds because “[t]he appellate
record is rife with evidence supporting a finding of incompetency,” and denied her
motion for plea withdrawal. Bethany points to her March 2023 “meltdown,” her
medical history, Dr. Collins’ initial and supplemental reports, and other
circumstantial evidence from the Sheboygan County case records as evidence that
she did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the pleas.

¶25 As Bethany notes, none of the evidence she relies on is dispositive of
her competency or lack of competency at the June 2023 plea hearing. The circuit
court was required to make a conclusion on the plea withdrawal motion based on
all of the evidence before it. While Bethany’s counsel raised significant
competency concerns, he did so several months after the pleas were entered. And,
while replacement counsel and Bethany’s GAL raised concerns about Bethany’s
competency, the concerns were related to specific conduct that occurred after
Bethany entered her pleas. Furthermore, Dr. Collins concluded in her
supplemental report that there were significant concerns about whether Bethany

10
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

was competent to enter a plea in June 2023, but acknowledged that she could not
say with certainty if Bethany was competent or not competent at the time of the
plea.

¶26 The court was able to consider Bethany’s conduct at the time of the
pleas and found it significant that Bethany was represented by counsel who
supported her entering the pleas. Based on its own recollection and the plea
hearing transcript, the court found Bethany’s conduct and responses appropriate.
Bethany’s counsel agreed that nothing in the plea hearing transcript suggested an
obvious competency problem, and she admits that the Sheboygan records are not
dispositive. The concerns about Bethany’s competency arose when she engaged
in erratic behavior during a subsequent hearing several months after she entered
her pleas.

¶27 It is clear from the record that Bethany suffers from numerous
complicated mental health disabilities and conditions and that she has been
incompetent to act in her own interest on more than one occasion, sometimes for
extended periods of time. There is no dispute that Bethany was not competent to
represent her own interests in this case starting as early as November 2023.
However, Bethany met with counsel in person on the day that she entered the
pleas, and following that meeting, counsel recommended she enter the pleas
despite knowledge of a prior competency concern in the Sheboygan County case;
at that hearing, Bethany acted and responded appropriately to the colloquy.
Therefore, on the basis of all of the evidence in the record before us, it is not clear
that Bethany was incompetent when she entered the no contest pleas to grounds in
June 2023.

11
Nos. 2025AP1476
2025AP1477

CONCLUSION

¶28 While we agree with Bethany that the record evidence and expert
reports suggest a “questionable plea,” Bethany was required to prove a manifest
injustice—that she was not competent to enter a plea—by clear and convincing
evidence in order to be entitled to plea withdrawal. She did not meet her burden.
We therefore affirm the circuit court.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

12