On Point blog, page 5 of 5
Brown Co. DHS v. Brenda B., No. 2010AP321, District III, 6/2/10; affirmed 2011 WI 6
court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky
TPR – Plea to Grounds
In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”
State v. Maceo W., No. 2009AP3098, District I, 6/2/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Maceo: Brian C. Findley
TPR – Assume-Responsibility Ground
Evidence sufficient to support verdict on § 48.451(6) ground of failure to assume parental responsibility for child born prematurely with significant medical needs:
¶30 The trial court accurately concluded that the evidence it outlined was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Maceo failed to assume parental responsibility of Jalacea.
Miranda Rights: Valid Waiver Though Preceded by 3 Hours’ Silence
Berghuis v. Thompkins, USSC No. 08-1470, 6/1/10
Thompkins’ acknowledgment that he prayed for God’s forgiveness for the shooting was admissible as valid waiver of Miranda rights, despite being preceded by nearly 3 hours of silence during custodial interrogation. Rights must be invoked unequivocally, or not at all:
The Court has not yet stated whether an invocation of the right to remain silent can be ambiguous or equivocal, but there is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis.
Federal Sex Offender Registration Act (SORNA): Construction, Effective Date
Carr v. U.S., USSC No. 08-1301, 6/1/10
… the Act established a federal criminal offense covering, inter alia, any person who (1) “is required to register under [SORNA],” (2) “travels in interstate or foreign commerce,” and (3) “knowingly fails to register or update a registration.” 18 U. S. C. §2250(a). At issue in this case is whether §2250 applies to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred prior to SORNA’s effective date and,