On Point blog, page 9 of 10
Conditions for child’s return were sufficiently narrow to satisfy due process
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.
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.
Evidence was sufficient to show mother failed to assume parental responsibility
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,
Termination of rights of cognitively disabled parent didn’t violate due process
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,
Parent in TPR not entitled to instruction about incarceration making it impossible to comply with conditions for return of her child because she had ample time before incarceration to comply
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.
TPR — Continuing CHIPS ground; constitutionality as applied to parent with cognitive limitations
State v. Ebony D., 2013AP619, 2013AP620, & 2013AP621, District 1, 6/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP619; 2013AP620; 2013AP621
The continuing need for protection and services grounds for termination of parental rights, § 48.415(2), is not unconstitutional as applied to Ebony D. because the evidence shows she was able to meet the continuing-CHIPS order’s conditions for return despite her claim that her cognitive limitations made it impossible for her to fulfill the conditions.
TPR – grounds; continuing CHIPS, failure to assume parental responsibility instead of continuing parental disability
State v. Angie A., 2012AP2240, District 1, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The state properly brought TPR petition alleging grounds under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2) (continuing need of protection and services) and § 48.416(6) (failure to assume parental responsibility) instead of § 48.415(3) (continuing parental disability, a ground that specifically targets parents with a mental illness or developmental disability), because the state could and did make a reasonable effort to provide Angie A.
TPR – Waiver of jury trial; admission to “child abuse” and CHIPS grounds
Racine County v. Latanya D.K., 2013 WI App 28; case activity
TPR – Waiver of jury trial need not be part of admission colloquy
¶2 Latanya’s major arguments raise an important question: Must the court engage in a personal colloquy with a parent regarding his or her waiver of the right to a jury trial before accepting the parent’s admission that grounds for termination of parental rights exist?
TPR – Grounds – CHIPS Order
State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity
¶18 “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,
TPR; Interest of Justice Review – Generally
Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity
Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,