On Point blog, page 3 of 4
Court of appeals upholds TPR summary judgment
J.N.W. v. J.R.P., 2017AP1390, 9/20/17, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Robert, the father of Jessica, appeals the termination of is parental rights. Specifically, he argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he failed to communicate with her for more than six months, and even if he did, whether he had good cause for his failure.
County-imposed conditions for reinstating visits in CHIPS proceedings didn’t violate due process
Monroe County DHS v. T.M., 2017AP875 & 2017AP876, District 4, 8/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.M.’s parental rights were terminated on abandonment grounds under § 48.415(1). (¶¶2-10). She argues this violated her substantive due process rights under Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, because the period of alleged abandonment included time during which the County suspended her visitation rights based on her failure to satisfy conditions it was impossible for her to meet. (¶14). The court of appeals disagrees.
Admission of child’s desire for TPR and father’s prior willingness harmless
R.J.M. v. M.R.H., 2016AP1307, 9/22/2016, District 4 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
M.R.H. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing that the jury during the grounds phase should not have heard (1) that he had previously been willing to voluntarily terminate his rights or (2) that his son wanted to be adopted by his stepfather. The court of appeals calls this evidence “problematic” but holds its admission harmless.
Child welfare agency can file TPR petition on any ground
Rock County HSD v. W.J., 2015AP2469, District 4, 5/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The county department had authority under § 48.42(1) to file a TPR petition alleging any ground for termination.
Leaving messages with foster parents does not qualify as “communicating with a child” under TPR statute
Dane County DHS v. Hershula B., 2014AP2076, 2/26/15, District 4 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket
Hershula appealed an order terminating her parental rights. She argued that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the abandonment issue because she presented evidence that she had communicated indirectly with her child. The court of appeals held that the phrase “communicate with the child” requires that the child share in the action of communicating with the parent. Slip op. ¶22. Indirect communications don’t count.
Court of appeals reverses “unfitness” finding in TPR case
Winnebago County DHS v. Ashley A.O., 2014AP2404, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court may not enter a summary judgment finding a parent unfit during the grounds phases of a TPR proceeding when that finding is based on an order denying the parent physical placement due to his (or her) incarceration.
Court of appeals affirms JNOV granted to mom in TPR case
Portage County DHHS v. Shannon M., 2014AP1259-1260, 10/2/14, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury found grounds–abandonment and continuing CHIPS–to terminate Shannon’s parental rights to her children. But the circuit court became worried that the jury might have viewed Shannon’s conduct very differently if it had known that the court had improperly entered a dispositional order against her, so it granted Shannon JNOV and dismissed the petitions to terminate her rights. The Department appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Trial counsel’s performance at TPR trial, if deficient, was not prejudicial
Aaron W.M. v. Britany T.H., 2013AP2123, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Britany claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to: 1) hearsay testimony from the child’s father that related incidents of Britany’s bad parenting; and 2) the petitioner’s “golden rule” rule argument during closing, which asked the jurors to view the case as if the child were their own, thus improperly asking the jurors to “internalize and personalize the case,
TPR — Failure to assume parental responsibility: special verdict questions; instruction that lack of opportunity and ability is not a defense. Abandonment: Leave to amend petition
Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background:
Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in January 2012, alleging failure to assume parental responsibility and six months of abandonment.
TPR – Right to Meaningful Participation – Lack of Objection
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.