On Point: 1. Abandonment

Racine County DHS v. W.L.J., 2020AP197-198, October 14, 2020, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Good news for defense lawyers in TPR cases. The court of appeals means business. This is the third time in less than a year that it has reversed a termination of parental rights order due to a circuit court error on the question of whether a parent “abandoned” his or her child.

Brown County Human Services v. T.F., 2020AP793, 9/22/20, District 3 (1-judge opinion, illegible for publication); case activity

To establish grounds for terminating T.F.’s parental rights, the Department sought to prove that she had abandoned her daughter, Allie, for period of 6 months or longer. It filed a successful motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of T.F.’s communications and visits with her daughter occurring after it filed its TPR petition. The court of appeals held that the circuit court erred in excluding this evidence. It reversed and remanded the case for a new jury trial on grounds for the TPR.

Juneau County DHS v. C.C., 2020AP438, 6/4/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Courts don’t usually award summary judgment in TPR cases, especially not at the grounds phase where the question is whether the parent abandoned the child. The issue is generally too fact intensive. But here the circuit court found no genuine issue of fact regarding abandonment, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Racine County Human Services Department v. S.J.A., 2019AP2160 & 2161, 2/5/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

It would be interesting to see the briefs in this case, but since it’s a TPR, they’re not online. What we can see is the opinion, which shows commendable (and unfortunately uncommon) attention to detail. It’s easy to imagine a glib, slapdash affirmance of this summary judgment against the parent in a TPR; we don’t get one though. Instead we see a searching review of what was proved and what was not, and a (really all too uncommon) reversal.

Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. N.R.K., 2019AP1726, 12/27/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Here the court of appeals upholds the termination of a biological father’s parental rights, concluding that he failed to assume parental responsibility.

Brown County Human Services v. B.P and T.F., 2019 WI App 18; case activity

T.F. argued that when the Department seeks to terminate parental rights on the grounds of abandonment in a case where the child is out of the home and a CHIPS order is in place, it must proceed under §48.415(1)(a)2., rather than (a)3. T.F. also argued that allowing the Department to proceed under (a)3 would result in an Equal Protection violation. The court of appeals rejected these arguments but held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to T.F. because material facts were in dispute over whether she had good cause for abandoning her daughter, Allie.

Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2.  The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate.

Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2.

K.M. v. R.O., 2018AP1206, District 1, 9/18/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

One ground for terminating a person’s parental rights is that the parent “abandoned” his child for 6 months or longer. In this case, a court ordered R.O. to have no contact with the mother of his child, which interfered with his visitation efforts. This appeal stems from the trial court’s customization of a jury instruction to address that problem and from the jury’s finding that R.O. had failed to assume parental responsibility.

State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1414, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/14/18; case activity
Issues:

1. Where, during the grounds phase of a TPR trial, the circuit court errs by directing a verdict in favor of the State without giving the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, has the court committed structural error, or is the error subject to a harmless error analysis?

2. If the error in this case is not structural, then was it harmless?