On Point blog, page 9 of 15
Return conditions not impossible, TPR verdict sustained
State v. K.M., 2016AP421, 5/17/2016, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects a mother’s two challenges to the termination of her parental rights.
Excluding evidence of return of older child harmless in TPR
Jefferson County Department of Human Services v. J.V., 2015AP2622, 2623, & 2624, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
J.V. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three younger children, arguing the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that she had succeeded in having her eldest child returned to her.
TPR order upheld despite multiple trial errors
Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. L.H., 2015AP1872, 3/23/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
During the fact-finding stage of L.H.’s TPR trial, counsel (1) failed to object to evidence that L.H’.s child, C.M., had bonded with his foster parents; (2) failed to object to an inaccurate 5/6ths verdict instruction; and (3) and agreed to only 3 peremptory strikes though L.H. was entitled to 4. The court of appeals nevertheless upheld the order terminating L.H.’s parental rights.
CHIPS order didn’t violate right to substantive due process
State v. J.S., 2015AP707, District 1, 3/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the failure to assume parental responsibility statute, § 48.415(6), to J.S. did not violate his right to substantive due process because J.S.’s own behavior, not the CHIPS order removing his daughter S.L. from her parental home, was what prevented him from taking part in S.L.’s daily supervision and care.
TPR affirmed against welter of challenges
Pierce County v. C.S., 2015AP1463 & 2015AP1464, District 3, 2/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her sons, D. S. and K. S., based on their continuing need for protection or services. She raises multiple, fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and circuit court error. All her claims are rejected.
Counsel at TPR trial wasn’t ineffective
Barron County DHHS v. J.H., 2015AP1529, District 3, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.H.’s claims that her trial counsel was ineffective are rejected because trial counsel’s actions were either not deficient or not prejudicial.
No substantive due process violation in TPR
Adams County DHHS v. D.S., 2015AP1937, District 4, 12/10/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, raising a substantive due process challenge to the jury’s finding of unfitness and contending that the circuit court erroneously found termination to be in the child’s best interest.
As-applied substantive due process challenge to TPR ground rejected
Dane County DHS v. J.D., 2015AP1800, District 4, 11/19/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
One of the statutory grounds for a finding of unfitness leading to termination of parental rights is the court-ordered denial of placement or visitation for at least one year. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). In Dane County DHS v. P. P., 2005 WI 32, 279 Wis. 2d 169, 694 N.W.2d 344, the supreme court rejected a facial challenge to this ground but left open the possibility that, as applied, it might violate substantive due process in a particular case. Per the court of appeals, this is not that case.
Parent’s failure to cooperate with discovery and with her counsel justified default judgment in TPR proceeding
State v. L.M.-N., 2014AP2405 & 2014AP2406, District 1/4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly entered a default judgment in L.M.-N.’s termination of parental rights proceeding based on her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition and, when she did finally appear, by refusing to testify.
Court’s discharge of TPR counsel justified under new statute
State v. T.P., 2015AP857, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Recently enacted statutes allow a circuit court to presume that a parent in a TPR proceeding has waived the right to counsel if, after being ordered to appear in court, the parent fails to do so and the court finds that failure egregious and without a justifiable excuse. The circuit court’s application of those statutes in this case didn’t violate the parent’s due process rights.