On Point: D. Grounds, Sec. 48.415

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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.

Dane Co. DHS v. Porfirio O. / Minerva L., 2011AP1247 et al., District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porfirio O.: Dennis Schertz; for Minvera L.: Steven Zaleski; case activity (Porfirio); case activity (Minerva)

The parents did not meet their burden of showing factual dispute as to whether their incarceration was the sole reason they were unable to meet conditions for return of the children under CHIPS orders,

D’Ann K. v. Benjamin J. G., 2010AP1655, District 4, 7/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Benjamin J.G.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

With failure to assume parental responsibility as the ground for termination, Benjamin G. “argues that the court did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances test established in Tammy W-G. because it failed to consider Benjamin’s testimony that D’Ann [the guardian] failed to return his phone calls.”

Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T., 2011 WI 30, on certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

TPR – Grounds, § 48.415(6) – “Substantial Parental Relationship”

¶22  The language of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6), specifically the underscored language, indicates that under § 48.415(6), a fact-finder must look to the totality-of-the-circumstances to determine if a parent has assumed parental responsibility. 

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

Walworth County DH&HS v. Andrea O., 2010AP2938, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Andrea O.:  Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence supported jury verdict on abandonment as to grounds for terminating parental rights, as against claim of good cause (incarceration) for conceded failure to communicate with the child.

¶8        The record reflects that Andrea may have sent a letter to her caseworker,

Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here, because the alleged abandonment period began two weeks before the end of the CHIPS placement order,

Marathon County Dept. of Social Services v. Lorie O., 2010AP2351, District 3, 12/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Summary judgment may be granted as to grounds for TPR, Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶6; but where the CHIPS order, on which alleged unfitness is premised, fails to set forth conditions for regaining contact with the child,

Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P. S, 2010AP573, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Determination of the “best interests of the child” at TPR disposition includes consideration of various factors, including the “wishes of the child.” The TPR court need not hear directly from the child, but may instead take evidence of the child’s wishes from other sources.

Court discusses evidentiary issues that appear to be too inconsequential,

State v. LaDonna E., 2010AP1733, District 1, 12/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaDonna E.: Jane S. Earle

Termination of parental rights upheld. Mother (LaDonna E.), after defaulting on grounds phase, challenged termination on basis that child’s aunt, who had custody and wanted to adopt child, should be appointed guardian instead.

¶9        The circuit court noted that “Kenny will be adopted.”  See Wis.