On Point: 11. Impossible condition

D.R. v. B.D., 2018AP1731 & 2018AP1732, District 3, 2/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.D.’s challenges to the order terminating his parental rights come up short.

State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.

State v. R.D.J., 2017AP547, 8/7/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.D.J. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, T.S.J. He argues that his lawyer was ineffective for not challenging the state’s expert’s report on Daubert and undue prejudice grounds, that his due process rights were violated because T.S.J.’s removal from the home made it impossible for him to show a substantial parental relationship, and that the CHIPS order itself established that such a relationship existed.

State v. A.E., 2017AP1773 & 2017AP1774, District 1, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is the third TPR opinion in a week addressing challenges to the denial of a postjudgment fact-finding hearing under § 809.107(6)(am) and a constitutional challenge to the application of the failure to assume parental responsibility standard to a parent whose children have been removed from the home under a CHIPS order. As with the other two cases, the court of appeals rejects the challenges.

State v. L.J., 2017AP1225, 2017AP1226, & 2017AP1227, District 1, 5/1/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.J. challenges her no-contest plea to there being grounds to terminate her parental rights to three of her seven children. She argues the plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary and that § 48.415(6), the statute regarding failure to assume parental responsibility, is unconstitutional as applied to her. She also argues there was improper testimony at the disposition hearing. The court of appeals rejects each claim.

State v. T.S.R., 2017AP548, 3/20/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.S.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She argues that the two statutory grounds on which she was found unfit–continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility–violate due process as applied to her.

State v. J.W., 2017AP689-690, 2/27/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.W. appealed a circuit court order terminating her parental rights to her 2 children and argued that (1) her trial lawyer misadvised her to enter a no-contest plea to grounds for termination and didn’t try hard to find a relative to place her children with, and (2) she did not knowingly agree to adjourn proceedings to work on conditions for return of her children–conditions that were impossible to meet.

Manitowoc County Human Serv. Dep’t v. J.K., 2017AP2371, 2/21/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you handle TPR cases, this opinion is worth reading because the appellant raised creative arguments regarding, for example, the proper legal standard for summary judgment and a court’s ability to take judicial notice  of its own records. She also lodged an “as applied” constitutional challenge to §48.415(6) regarding failure to assume parental responsibility. This decision has SCOW potential.

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.

State v. K.M., 2016AP421, 5/17/2016, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects a mother’s two challenges to the termination of her parental rights.