County attorney to argue before Wisconsin Supreme Court

COUNTY – Waupaca County’s top attorney will head to the state’s highest court this September to argue a case with statewide implications that will determine whether county corporation counsel may intervene in privately filed child welfare petitions seeking continued services for youth aging out of foster care.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to review legal issues in the case of a parentless teenager referred to in court records by the initials “S.G.,” whose request for extended state services was blocked after Waupaca County intervened in 2023.

Corporation Counsel Angela Boelter informed the Legislative, Judicial, Ethics, Safety and Security Committee last week that she will personally argue Waupaca County’s position before the justices this fall. She said the upcoming supreme court hearing is “a little nerve-wracking but exciting.”

The case began in April 2023, when 17-year-old S.G. filed a petition in Waupaca County Circuit Court asking to continue receiving services under Wisconsin’s Children in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) law for one more year so she could complete high school and transition to adulthood.

A CHIPS petition allows a court to order protection for a child who has been abused, neglected, or is without a parent or guardian. Under Wisconsin law, children age 12 and older have the right to file this petition on their own behalf. If the court grants the protection, the out-of-home care orders typically expire when a youth turns 18, but state law allows them to continue until graduation or age 19 for full-time high school students.

According to court records, S.G. was placed in multiple foster homes beginning in early childhood, where she witnessed domestic violence and experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, torture, emotional abuse and neglect. About two weeks before her 18th birthday, S.G. was placed in a foster home in Waupaca County, where she filed the CHIPS petition.

In S.G.’s case, corporation counsel, the attorney that provides legal services for the entire county, intervened, arguing that state law gave the office the right to participate as a party in the case to represent the interests of the public. Corporation counsel immediately moved to dismiss S.G.’s action.

Because the petition was contested, the circuit court was required to delay proceedings to schedule a fact-finding hearing. S.G. filed a motion for reconsideration the day before her 18th birthday, arguing that corporation counsel had not been granted party status in her CHIPS case and therefore lacked the authority to oppose her petition. The court denied the motion. Before the court could rule further, S.G. turned 18, causing the circuit court to lose jurisdiction over the CHIPS case, and the petition was dismissed.

S.G. appealed the dismissal. Although her case was legally moot because she had already turned 18, meaning a ruling would no longer have a practical effect on her request for services, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals chose to decide the case anyway. In April 2025, it reversed the circuit court’s dismissal.

The three-judge appellate panel recognized that the case is a “matter of first impression” for Wisconsin, meaning courts lacked clear precedent on this scenario, and the issue is likely to arise again and needs to be resolved to avoid uncertainty.

The court wrote that the issue is of “great public importance,” particularly for young people whose parents’ rights have been terminated and who turn 18 before graduating from high school but continue to need state services.

“These young people are often among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in the state, and the legislature has recognized that their health, safety, and development are of paramount importance,” Judge Chris Taylor wrote.

The court ruled that state law does not grant a corporation counsel automatic party status to contest a CHIPS petition that they did not initiate. The court found that allowing a corporation counsel to contest these petitions could prevent children from receiving needed support, directly contradicting the legislative purpose of the state’s Children’s Code.

Boelter, Waupaca County’s corporation counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court of appeals. She then filed a petition for review in May 2025, asking the Supreme Court to take the case.

The supreme court has agreed to review two issues: whether state law automatically gives corporation counsel the right to participate as a party in a CHIPS case, even when the petition is filed by someone other than the county; and whether corporation counsel can participate because it represents the public’s interests when the county’s Department of Human Services would be responsible for providing and paying for any court-ordered services.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 15. The court’s decision is expected to set statewide precedent on the role of county corporation counsel in privately filed CHIPS cases.