On Point blog, page 3 of 3
TPR based on continuing denial of periods of placement and disposition didn’t violate due process
Dane County DHS v. Latasha G., 2014AP45 & 2014AP46, District 4, 4/3/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP45; 2014AP46
Latasha argues she was determined to be unfit based on a condition that was impossible for her to satisfy due to an order in criminal cases barring any contact with the girls. Thus, the termination violated her substantive due process rights under Kenosha Cnty.
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,
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.
Substantive Due Process – Grounds for Termination – Impossible to Meet Condition for Return
Kenosha Co. DHS v. Jodi W. 2006 WI 93, reversing summary order
Issue: Whether finding of parental unfitness in a TPR, grounded on a condition for the child’s return that was impossible to meet when imposed (namely that the parent set up a suitable residence within 12 months even though she was incarcerated and would not be released before then), violates substantive due process.
Holding:
¶49 Like the Nevada Supreme Court,
Admissibility of Evidence — Expert Opinion Testimony on TPR Parent’s Ability to Meet Condition for Child’s Return
Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion
Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children.
Holding:
¶40 In deciding the issue of foundation, the circuit court seemed fixated on the psychological tests that Dr.