State v. R. A. M., 2024 WI 26

R.A.M. is the mother of P.M., who was placed in foster care following an incident that resulted in R.A.M.'s conviction for child abuse and subsequent extended foster placement.
The State filed a petition to terminate R.A.M.'s parental rights (TPR) after P.M. had been out of R.A.M.'s custody for over three years.
During the TPR proceedings, R.A.M. failed to appear for a critical hearing despite a prior court order requiring her appearance, and the court found her absence "egregious and without justification."
The circuit court issued a default judgment on the grounds phase and immediately proceeded to and concluded the dispositional hearing the same day—without waiting two days as arguably required by Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3.
The court of appeals reversed the termination order, finding the circuit court lacked competency for not waiting two days after the egregiousness finding before the dispositional hearing.
On review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding the statutory waiting period was mandatory and central to the statutory TPR scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3. required the court to wait two days after an egregiousness finding before holding the dispositional hearing	R.A.M.: The statute mandates a two-day wait if the court finds nonappearance was egregious and unjustified	State: The two-day wait only applies if the parent has waived the right to counsel; here, counsel was present and active	Yes, the statute requires a two-day waiting period regardless of the status of counsel
Whether proceeding immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting deprived the court of competency	R.A.M.: The statutory waiting period is mandatory and central to the TPR process; skipping it is a competency defect	State: Even if waiting was required, failure to abide was not jurisdictional and did not deprive the court of competency	Failure to comply was central to the statutory scheme; thus, competency was lost

State v. Forrett, 401 Wis. 2d 678 (plain meaning approach for statutory interpretation)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (standard rules of statutory construction, plain meaning rule)
Village of Trempeleau v. Mikrut, 273 Wis. 2d 76 (failure to comply with certain statutory mandates may strip court of competency)
Sheboygan Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Matthew S., 282 Wis. 2d 150 (TPR statutory time limits are central to the ch. 48 scheme)
Brookhouse v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 2d 166 (language such as "may not" is mandatory and not directory)