On Point: 1. Right to notice/participation

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,

Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity

¶7        Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons.  First, he appeared by telephone, not videoconference, and he did not waive his right to appear by videoconference.  Second, he could not hear what was being said during trial. 

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, ¶10, 307 Wis. 2d 372,

Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence.

¶16      Addressing first the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 48.422(7)(a),  the plain import of the requirement that the court “[a]ddress the parties present” is that the court engage in an on-the-record discussion,

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published)

Issue/Holding: A deported father’s participation in the TPR proceeding by a webcam system was “meaningful,” given that he could see and hear witnesses, be seen by the court, and communicate privately with counsel and with aid of an interpreter, ¶¶10-19.

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 (telephone hookup not functional equivalent of personal presence,

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55

 Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may deny a parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding the statutory right to counsel when the parent has appeared in the proceeding but failed to personally attend a hearing in contravention of a court order and is found in default as a sanction for disobeying the court order.” (¶2)

Holding:

¶41 We do not accept the State’s position for three reasons.

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266

Issue/Holding:

¶2        Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoted sources and one internal quotation mark omitted).

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266

Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned  in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation.

Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the father yet weren’t attempted, and the telephone hook-up was, under the circumstances,