On Point blog, page 14 of 21
Totality of evidence showed mother failed to assume parental responsibility
State v. L.N.S., 2015AP1617, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence regarding the mother’s interaction with her daughter over the daughter’s entire lifetime was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the mother failed to assume parental responsibility.
Colloquy on admission to TPR grounds doesn’t require advisement that incarceration alone can’t be ground for unfitness finding
State v. A.M.B., 2015AP1618, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Andy was incarcerated when his daughter Catie was born and he remained in custody throughout the subsequent CHIPS and TPR proceedings. He ultimately admitted to the continuing CHIPS ground for termination of his parental rights, but now claims his admission was invalid because he was not aware that, under Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, incarceration alone cannot be grounds to terminate parental rights. The court of appeals finds no flaws in his admission.
TPR order upheld despite multiple trial errors
Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. L.H., 2015AP1872, 3/23/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
During the fact-finding stage of L.H.’s TPR trial, counsel (1) failed to object to evidence that L.H’.s child, C.M., had bonded with his foster parents; (2) failed to object to an inaccurate 5/6ths verdict instruction; and (3) and agreed to only 3 peremptory strikes though L.H. was entitled to 4. The court of appeals nevertheless upheld the order terminating L.H.’s parental rights.
CHIPS order didn’t violate right to substantive due process
State v. J.S., 2015AP707, District 1, 3/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the failure to assume parental responsibility statute, § 48.415(6), to J.S. did not violate his right to substantive due process because J.S.’s own behavior, not the CHIPS order removing his daughter S.L. from her parental home, was what prevented him from taking part in S.L.’s daily supervision and care.
One conviction doesn’t constitute a “pattern” of child abuse
K.C. v. B.S.-S., 2015AP1702, District 2, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.S.-S.’s single conviction for intentionally causing harm to a child in violation of § 948.03(2)(b) does not demonstrate “a pattern of physically … abusive behavior” under § 48.415(5), so the circuit court erred in terminating B.S.-S.’s parental rights based on that conviction.
No substantive due process violation in TPR
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.
As-applied substantive due process challenge to TPR ground rejected
Dane County DHS v. J.D., 2015AP1800, District 4, 11/19/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
One of the statutory grounds for a finding of unfitness leading to termination of parental rights is the court-ordered denial of placement or visitation for at least one year. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). In Dane County DHS v. P. P., 2005 WI 32, 279 Wis. 2d 169, 694 N.W.2d 344, the supreme court rejected a facial challenge to this ground but left open the possibility that, as applied, it might violate substantive due process in a particular case. Per the court of appeals, this is not that case.
Child welfare bureau’s failures don’t invalidate TPR based on failure to assume parental responsibility
State v. N.J., 2015AP1477 & 2015AP1478, District 1, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The order terminating N.J.’s parental rights based on her failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6) was not invalidated by any failures by the Milwaukee Child Welfare Bureau to make reasonable efforts to reunite N.J. with her two children.
Father’s stipulation to TPR grounds was valid despite later remarks suggesting he didn’t understand the grounds
State v. K.G., 2015AP245, District 1, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.G.’s stipulation to the failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground alleged in the TPR petition was valid even though K.G.’s later statements during the disposition hearing suggest he misunderstood what the state would have to prove to establish that ground for termination.
Sec. 48.415(2)3 applies to CHIPS orders before parent has exhausted appellate rights
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.