On Point blog, page 4 of 4
TPR – Grounds
Walworth County DH&HS v. Andrea O., 2010AP2938, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Andrea O.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence supported jury verdict on abandonment as to grounds for terminating parental rights, as against claim of good cause (incarceration) for conceded failure to communicate with the child.
¶8 The record reflects that Andrea may have sent a letter to her caseworker,
TPR Grounds: Abandonment
Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here, because the alleged abandonment period began two weeks before the end of the CHIPS placement order,
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds (Abandonment)
Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm
The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment.
¶7 … First, Steven V. explained that its discussion of the use of summary judgment procedure on grounds proven by documentary evidence versus those proven by non-documentary evidence was not “mean[t] to imply that the general categorization of statutory grounds in this and the preceding paragraph represent a definitive statement about the propriety of summary judgment in any particular case.” Id.
Grounds — Abandonment by Biological Parent, Occurring Prior to Adjudication as Parent, as Ground for Termination, §§ 48.02(13), 48.415(1)(a)3
State v. James P., 2005 WI 80, affirming, 2004 WI App 124
Issue: Whether biological father’s parental rights could be terminated on the ground of “abandonment” where he was not adjudicated as father until after alleged periods of abandonment.
Holding:
¶15 We hold that an individual who is in fact the biological father of a nonmarital child satisfies the definition of “parent”