On Point: 3. Continuing CHIPS

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.

State v. E.P., 2015AP1298-1300, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds to terminate E.P.’s parental rights because his kids were in continuing need of protective services. The court of appeals rejected E.P.’s arguments that § 48.415(2)’s “6 months or longer” period (i.e. the time a child has been placed outside the home per a CHIPS order) begins to run only after he exhausted his appellate rights. The court also declined to order a new trial in the interests of justice.

Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.

State v. Mary G., 2015AP55, 2015AP56, & 2015AP57, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase of the trial on a TPR petition, the circuit court properly ordered Mary G. to provide the State with notes from her mental health treatment provider and appropriately considered evidence regarding Mary’s failure to manage her medications.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point):

Do §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) require the final CHIPS order filed before a TPR petition warn the parent about grounds for termination and the conditions for return or the child, or is it sufficient that the parent was given “adequate notice” of the grounds for termination and conditions of return during the pendency of the CHIPS proceeding?

State v. Kiwana L., 2014AP2306, District 1, 1/13/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Kiwana L.’s substantive due process rights were not violated by the conditions set by the circuit court for return of her daughter Jasmine because those conditions were narrowly tailored to address her mental health issues; thus, the termination of her parental rights based on continuing CHIPS grounds under § 48.415(2) was proper.

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.

Barron County DHHS v. Maria A., 2013AP2735, District 3, 4/1/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the highly deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims, State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, ¶30, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Maria failed to assume parental responsibility for her daughter,

State v. Lawanda R., 2013AP1661, District 1/4, 1/16/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly found that a parent with serious cognitive disabilities (she “functions at the level of a child less than ten years old” (¶8)) was unfit under § 48.415(2) on the sole basis that she failed to meet the conditions established by a continuing CHIPS order for the return of Will,

Ozaukee County DHS v. Callen D.M., 2013AP1157, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Callen D.M. was not entitled to an instruction about the impossibility of meeting the conditions of a CHIPS order due to her incarceration, a TPR defense recognized in Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845:

¶13      The facts in Callen’s case stand in stark contrast to those in Jodie W.