On Point blog, page 17 of 21
Consent to termination of parental rights deemed voluntary and in the best interests of the child
Jessica G. and Joshua G. v. Alicia L., 2013AP1843, District 2, 11/27/13 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Issue: Whether Alicia’s L’s consent to the termination of her parental rights was voluntary.
¶6 The circuit court may accept a parent’s voluntary consent to TPR only after questioning the parent and determining that the consent is voluntary and informed. Wis. Stat. § 48.41(2)(a). In making its determination,
Reference to “best interests of the child” during grounds phase of TPR deemed not prejudicial
Winnebago County DHS v. Christina M.C., 2013AP1519/1520; District 2; 11/27/13 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In the initial “grounds” stage of this TPR, the County and the GAL made several veiled references, plus one explicit reference, to the “bests of the child,” a topic that’s not to be addressed until stage 2. Christina moved to set aside the finding that she is unfit as a parent, arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to these comments.
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 — failure to assume parental responsibility; sufficiency of the evidence
Patrick J.T. v. Shelly S., 2013AP778 and 2013AP779, District 4, 6/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP778; 2013AP779
Under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard for determining whether a parent has assumed parental responsibility, Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T., 2011 WI 30, ¶22, 333 Wis. 2d 273, 797 N.W.2d 854, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Shelly S.
TPR — Effective assistance of counsel at fact-finding hearing
Jenna L.C. v. Dustin J.K.V., 2012AP2696, District 2, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects Dustin’s claim that his attorney was ineffective at the fact-finding hearing on a TPR petition alleging he had failed to assume parental responsibility for his daughter, Breyanna.
Trial counsel did not object to certain evidence about conduct Dustin allegedly engaged in shortly before he learned his girlfriend was pregnant with Breyanna.
TPR — failure to assume parental responsibility: sufficiency of evidence; constitutionality of ground as applied
Langlade County DSS v. Michael P., 2013AP385, 2013AP386, & 2013AP387, District 3, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP385; 2013AP386; 2013AP387
Sufficiency of evidence
Based on the entire record of the fact-finding hearing, the court of appeals concludes there was sufficient evidence that Michael P. failed to assume parental responsibility, despite his testimony tending to show he did assume responsibility:
¶26 …[I]t is clear that Michael did not have a “substantial parental relationship” with his children over the course of their lives.
TPR — Failure to assume parental responsibility: special verdict questions; instruction that lack of opportunity and ability is not a defense. Abandonment: Leave to amend petition
Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background:
Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in January 2012, alleging failure to assume parental responsibility and six months of abandonment.
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 – constitutionality of child abuse grounds under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5); propriety of summary judgment
Racine County v. Renee D., 2012AP1974, District 2, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5) is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate due process
As applied to Renee D., the two elements for the “child abuse” ground under § 48.415(5) are: 1) the parent has shown a pattern of physical or sexual abuse that is a substantial threat to the health of the child who is the subject of the petition;