On Point blog, page 3 of 3
Circuit court properly found parent failed to meet conditions of CHIPS order
Dane County DHS v. Connie H., 2015AP552, District 4, 8/20/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised it discretion when it denied Connie’s petition to revise a CHIPS dispositional order to lift a suspension of visits with her son, K.H.
Failure to hold hearing within statutory time limit means circuit court lost competency to decide ch. 54 guardianship petition
Tina B. v. Richard H., 2014 WI App 123; case activity
The circuit court lost competency to decide a guardianship proceeding under § 54.34 because it failed to decide the case within the statutory time limit, but the circuit court’s decisions in a related guardianship proceeding under § 48.977 are affirmed.
Any error in admitting expert testimony in CHIPS case was harmless
State v. Eugene P., 2014AP361, 2014AP362 & 2014AP363, District 1, 9/3/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP361; 2014AP362; 2014AP363
Allowing a doctor to testify at a CHIPS trial that the children’s injuries were the result of abuse was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
General summons statute for ch. 48 doesn’t provide basis for grandparents to intervene in CHIPS proceeding
Renee B. v. Dane County DHS, 2013AP2273, District 4, 4/10/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court’s decision to give grandparents notices of CHIPS hearings under the ch. 48 summons statute, § 48.27(2), doesn’t mean the grandparents have the right to intervene in the proceeding. While David S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis.
CHIPS petition failed to establish probable cause that child is in need of protection and services
John M.S. v. Marcy J.S., 2013AP2644-FT, District 2, 3/12/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Father’s petition under § 48.13(4) was insufficient because it fails to provide reliable and credible information and contain facts alleging that (1) the child “is in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court” and (2) the parent “is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care” for the child,
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to decide case involving a minor’s right to refuse medical treatment
Dane County v. Sheila W., 2013 WI 63 (per curiam), affirming court of appeals summary disposition; case activity
The supreme court dismisses as moot a case presenting the questions of whether Wisconsin recognizes the “mature minor” doctrine, which permits a minor to give or refuse consent to medical treatment after a finding that she is sufficiently mature and competent to make the treatment decision, and whether a minor has a due process right to refuse medical treatment.
Court of appeals tosses jury verdict in CHIPS case
Polk County v. Norman S., 2012AP2801, District 3, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity.
Given the court of appeals’s highly deferential standard of review for jury verdicts, it doesn’t throw them out very often. In this case, it did. A jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Norman S. was unable to provide necessary care so as to seriously endanger the physical health of his son,