����������� APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County:� chad g. kerkman, Judge.� Dimissed.�
�1������� BROWN, C.J.[1]��� Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.� At the time that she wrote her brief, the father�s appeal was pending. Amber claimed that if the father�s appeal is successful and his case is remanded for further proceedings, her appeal should be likewise successful because her issue mirror�s the father�s argument.� But the father�s appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.� So, there is no justiciable issue for this court to decide. Her appeal is moot.
�2������� Both Amber D. and Timothy M. had their parental rights terminated due to continuing denial of periods of placement or visitation in an order dated December 29, 2010.� See Wis. Stat. � 48.415(4).� In their separate appeals, Timothy and Amber both argued that Timothy was entitled to a new trial because his telephone participation in the first trial was inadequate under State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266, 288 Wis. 2d 504, 708 N.W.2d 698. �In other words, they argued that he was denied meaningful participation in the proceedings.�
�3������� We very recently affirmed the trial court�s termination of Timothy�s parental rights in Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Amber D., No. 2011AP562, unpublished slip op. �13 (WI App Aug. 10, 2011), stating that �[a]t no point in the TPR proceedings was Timothy denied his right to meaningfully participate.�� That decision became the law of the case.� See State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, �23, 262 Wis. 2d 620, 664 N.W.2d 82 (�The law of the case doctrine is a �longstanding rule that a decision on a legal issue by an appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the trial court or on later appeal.��).�
�4������� Based
on the decision from the father�s case, the County argues that Amber�s only claim�that
she should be afforded the same relief that the father would obtain�is
moot.� See Appel v. Halverson, 50 Wis. 2d 230, 233, 184 N.W.2d
99 (1971) (An appeal is moot when a decision �is no longer needed or makes no
difference as to the resolution of the controversy.�)� We agree. We also note that Amber chose not
to file a reply brief, thereby tacitly conceding the County�s argument.� See
Mervosh v. LIRC, 2010 WI App 36,
�10, 324 Wis. 2d 134, 781 N.W.2d
236 (arguments not refuted are deemed admitted).
By the Court.�Appeal dismissed.
This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 752.31(2)(e) (2009-10).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.