On Point blog, page 13 of 21
Court of appeals: no error in TPR disposition phase
Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest.
Admission of child’s desire for TPR and father’s prior willingness harmless
R.J.M. v. M.R.H., 2016AP1307, 9/22/2016, District 4 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
M.R.H. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing that the jury during the grounds phase should not have heard (1) that he had previously been willing to voluntarily terminate his rights or (2) that his son wanted to be adopted by his stepfather. The court of appeals calls this evidence “problematic” but holds its admission harmless.
TPR order survives ineffective assistance of counsel claim and and constitutional challenges
State v. V.A., 2015AP1614, 7/19/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
V.A. presented many issues on appeal, and the court rejected all of them. The most interesting ones concern collateral attacks on CHIPS orders, competency, and whether Wisconsin’s “failure to assume parental responsibility” statute is unconstitutional as applied to V.A.
Evidence sufficient to support TPR order
State v. J.M., 2016AP817 & 2016AP817, District 1, 7/6/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence introduced at the fact finding hearing was sufficient to establish both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of T.M.’s children.
Return conditions not impossible, TPR verdict sustained
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.
SCOW does not overrule Steven H., except for the holding
St. Croix County Department of Health and Human Services v. Michael D. & Juanita A., 2016 WI 35, 05/12/2016, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607, finds itself roundly praised and deeply buried by our high court.
Child welfare agency can file TPR petition on any ground
Rock County HSD v. W.J., 2015AP2469, District 4, 5/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The county department had authority under § 48.42(1) to file a TPR petition alleging any ground for termination.
As-applied constitutional challenges to TPR rejected
State v. G.H., 2015AP1606, District 1, 4/28/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
G.H.’s parental rights to M.R.H. were terminated on the grounds that M.R.H. remained in need of protection or services under § 48.415(2) and that G.H. had failed to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6). The court of appeals rejects his claims that these statutes are unconstitutional as applied to him.
Circuit court properly entered default judgment against mom at the grounds phase of TPR proceeding
Waukesha County DH&HS v. K.R.G., 2016AP222, 4/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals here holds that a mom’s failure to follow court orders and failure to make court appearances were egregious enough to justify a default finding of grounds for terminating her parental rights even though she asserted a “desire” and “determination” to participate in the proceeding.
Excluding evidence of return of older child harmless in TPR
Jefferson County Department of Human Services v. J.V., 2015AP2622, 2623, & 2624, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
J.V. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three younger children, arguing the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that she had succeeded in having her eldest child returned to her.