On Point blog, page 18 of 21
TPR – Right to Meaningful Participation – Lack of Objection
Veronica K. v. Michael K., 2012AP197, District 1, 10/10/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Michael K., incarcerated at the time of this TPR trial, appeared by audio-video hookup. He argues that his due process right to meaningful participation, State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266, ¶2, 288 Wis. 2d 504, 708 N.W.2d 698, in light of his numerous contemporaneous complaints he couldn’t hear the proceedings.
TPR – Grounds: “Reasonable Effort” Obligation of Responsible Agency, § 48.415(2)(a)2b
State v. Elbert H., 2012AP446 / State v. Stacee P., 2012AP169, District 1, 6/12/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); for Elbert H.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; for Stacee P.: Gregory Bates; case activity
The relevant agency’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to provide court-ordered services encompasses post-petition activity:
¶8 Stacee P.’s contention that the proof of “reasonable effort” are limited to activities antedating the petition is belied by the statute,
TPR – Severance; IAC – Lack of Prejudice; Grounds: Failure to Assume Parental Responsibility – Constitutionality
Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H, 2011AP2600, District 3, 5/15/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amanda H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H., 2011AP2599
TPR – Severance
On joint trial for termination of parental rights, Scott’s disruptive conduct didn’t necessitate grant of severance motion by Amanda.
TPR – Grounds, Sufficiency of Evidence; TPR – Termination Phase, Exercise of Discretion
State v. Marquis O., 2011AP2642, District 1, 2/14/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquis O.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity
Grounds for terminating parental rights upheld, against argument that Bureau of Child Welfare didn’t make reasonable effort to provide services for Marquis O. to meet conditions for child’s return to him.
¶5 The termination of Marquis O.’s parental rights to Mariyana was based on the child’s having,
TPR – Constitutionality, § 48.415(6)
Chippewa County Dept. of Human Services v. James A., 2011AP2613, District 3, 2/7/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James A.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶18 James does not allege Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) implicates a First Amendment right. Therefore, the threshold question is whether James’ conduct plainly falls within the statute’s proscriptions. If it does, he is precluded from challenging the statute on vagueness grounds.
TPR – Constitutionality of § 48.415(6); Interest of Justice Review – Jury Instructions, Failure to Assume Parental Responsibility
Langlade County Dept. of Social Services v. Rebecca D., 2010AP2497, District 3, 11/15/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rebecca D.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶19 On the facts adduced at trial, Rebecca clearly failed to assume parental responsibility for Anthony, pursuant to the standards set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). Anthony was nearly five months old when he was removed from Rebecca’s home.
TPR – Grounds – CHIPS Order
State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity
¶18 “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,
TPR – Evidence – Child’s Mental Health Problems; Prior Voluntary Termination – Harmless Error
Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity
Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.
¶15 The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,
TPR – Directed Verdict, Authority to Order; Failure to Assume Parental Responsibility
State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity
Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to exercise this authority sua sponte,
TPR – Sufficiency of Evidence; Oral Instructions: Timing; Counsel – Presence, Return of Verdict
Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the parent provided the child throughout the child’s entire life,” Tammy W-G.