Background
Rock County removed T.S.’s two children from his care in March 2017, and the circuit court subsequently entered child-in-need-of-protection-or-services orders. In 2024, the County petitioned to terminate T.S.’s parental rights, alleging continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. A jury found both grounds proved as to each child, and the circuit court entered termination orders after a dispositional hearing.
On appeal, T.S. argued that the circuit judge was objectively biased because the judge had represented him in a criminal case approximately 13 years earlier. T.S. also challenged testimony concerning a 2018 emergency-detention proceeding and argued that the court should have declared a mistrial after a witness referred to an earlier termination-of-parental-rights proceeding involving the same children.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that T.S. failed to establish objective judicial bias. The circuit judge repeatedly stated that he had no recollection of representing T.S., and T.S. identified no evidence showing that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. The court also rejected T.S.’s attempt to apply attorney-conflict rules to the constitutional judicial-bias analysis, which asks whether the circumstances created a serious risk of actual bias.
The court concluded that T.S. had not shown that the guardian’s testimony about the 2018 emergency-detention hearing was hearsay or impermissible other-acts evidence. Assuming that the County should have disclosed the testimony more specifically before trial and that it should have been excluded, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury heard extensive unchallenged evidence about T.S.’s guardianship, protective placement, neurocognitive condition, and a later emergency detention. Finally, the circuit court reasonably denied a mistrial because the brief reference to the earlier TPR proceeding was not so inflammatory that an instruction directing jurors to disregard it was inadequate.
Key Takeaways
- A judge’s forgotten representation of a party 13 years earlier did not, without evidence that the judge retained relevant confidential information, establish a serious risk of actual bias.
- Evidence that an emergency-detention proceeding occurred and was converted into guardianship and protective-placement proceedings was not shown to contain an out-of-court statement offered for its truth or to constitute other-acts evidence.
- A brief reference to an earlier TPR proceeding did not require a mistrial where the testimony was stricken, the jury was instructed to disregard it, and the circuit court reasonably found the instruction sufficient to cure any prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding standard for proving constitutionally significant judicial bias and confirms that underlying factual findings—including a judge’s lack of recollection—remain subject to clear-error review even though the ultimate bias question is reviewed independently.
It also reinforces the substantial discretion circuit courts possess when addressing unexpected testimony. Appellate courts generally presume that jurors follow instructions to disregard stricken evidence, particularly when the challenged reference is brief and not highly inflammatory in the context of the full trial.