On Point: B. Constitutional rights

Racine County v. Latanya D.K., 2013 WI App 28; case activity

TPR – Waiver of jury trial need not be part of admission colloquy

¶2        Latanya’s major arguments raise an important question:  Must the court engage in a personal colloquy with a parent regarding his or her waiver of the right to a jury trial before accepting the parent’s admission that grounds for termination of parental rights exist?

La Crosse Co. DHS v. Kristle S., 2012AP2005, District 4, 11/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The parent was given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the social worker with respect to conditions for the children’s return, in that the trial court permitted extensive questioning on these issues before instructing counsel to pursue a different line of questioning:

¶17      Our review of the record also demonstrates that Kristle had a meaningful opportunity to impeach Simmons’ credibility.

Nicole P. v. Michael P., 2012AP780, District 3, 10/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Father’s motion to withdraw admission to grounds (based on asserted lack of understanding that: termination of parental rights required an unfitness determination; sole focus of dispositional hearing would be child’s best interests, with no concern for parent’s own interests; disposition could result in permanent extinction of all his parental rights),

Veronica K. v. Michael K., 2012AP197, District 1, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Michael K., incarcerated at the time of this TPR trial, appeared by audio-video hookup. He argues that his due process right to meaningful participation, State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266, ¶2, 288 Wis. 2d 504, 708 N.W.2d 698, in light of his numerous contemporaneous complaints he couldn’t hear the proceedings. 

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.

Brown County Department of Human Services v. David D., 2012AP722, District 3, 95/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Parent’s appearance by telephone held to satisfy right to “meaningful participation”:

¶10      “A parent’s rights to his or her children are substantial and are protected by due process.”  Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16,

Dunn County Human Services v. Eric R., 2011AP2416, District 3, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

That counsel for the parent on a termination petition had, while serving as a family court commissioner 19 months earlier, entered a child support order against the parent, did not alone establish a conflict of interest.  Supreme Court Rule 20:1.12(a) (“a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge”),

Michael B. v. Marcy M., 2011AP2846, District 2, 5/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marcy M.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

By responding (inadequately) to a TPR motion for summary judgment on grounds with a letter rather than evidence such as an affidavit, counsel provided ineffective assistance.

¶10      We disagree that counsel’s performance was “not ineffective.”  In the face of summary judgment that would deprive Marcy of a jury determination on her failure to assume parental responsibility,

Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H, 2011AP2599, District 3, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott H.: Brian C. Findley; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H., 2011AP2599 

Notwithstanding trial counsel’s concession of no strategic reason for allowing the jury to view documents reciting Scott’s “history of violent behavior,”

State v. Corrine J., 2011AP1916 / State v. Dalvin C., Sr., 2011AP1882, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Corrine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Dalvin C.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to object to the guardian ad litem’s closing argument wasn’t prejudicial, given the strength of the case for terminating parental rights. (The argument, merits of which the court doesn’t reach,