On Point: D. Grounds, Sec. 48.415

Brown County Department of Human Services v. S.K., 2023 WI App 27; case activity

A court has grounds to terminate parental rights under §48.415(9m) when the parent commits a “serious felony against a child.” Here, the circuit court found that grounds existed to terminate Stephanie’s parental rights to Robert because she had been convicted of  child neglect resulting in death under but “as a party to the crime.” In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals reversed, but it rejected Stephanie’s argument that an “as a party to the crime” conviction can never qualify as a “serious felony.”

State v. B.L., 2023AP8, 4/11/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Barry” appealed an order terminating his parental rights to his 4 1/2-year-old daughter, Alice. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting his criminal history during the grounds phase and erred in finding that it was in Alice’s best interest to terminate his rights. He lost on both issues.

Kenosha County v. A.C.S., 2022AP1821-1825, 2/15/23, District 2 (one judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Here’s a fact pattern one hopes doesn’t come up too often. The county sought the termination of “Anna’s” parental rights to five children. It then moved for summary judgment on the grounds that she’d been convicted of a serious felony related to the death of another child. A hearing was set, but Anna’s counsel informed the court she’d be in trial in a homicide case. Expecting an adjournment–which both trial counsel and the court of appeals note is “common practice” in such a situation–the attorney told Anna the hearing would be put off. Counsel’s homicide trial then unexpectedly ended early, though she still had work to do to wrap it up. The TPR court apparently heard through the grapevine that the homicide trial was over. Without any successful contact–or much apparent effort to contact–Anna or her lawyer, the court held the scheduled hearing ex parte and, at the county’s request, granted summary judgment. Later, over Anna and her counsel’s protestations, the court terminated her rights.

Portage County DH & HS v. C.S., 2022AP1090, District 4, 02/23/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

In what appears to be a first, the court of appeals addresses a grant of partial summary judgment against a parent specifically related to whether the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services pursuant to a CHIPS order. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). One caveat being that the issue arises within the context of a postdisposition claim of ineffective assistance after trial counsel failed to file any response or affidavit opposing the county’s motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, the court affirms the summary judgment order and holds that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services to C.S. that would have assisted him in meeting the conditions of return. (Opinion, ¶35).

N.D. v. E.S., 2022AP1084, District 2, 01/25/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Nancy (N.D.) petitioned to terminate Ed’s (E.D.’s) parental rights on the grounds that he abandoned their daughter, Kim. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1). At trial, Ed asserted a “good cause” defense that Nancy prevented him from having contact with Kim, and in response, Nancy was allowed to testify that the reason for her interference was Ed’s  “heroin use.” Despite the fact that Nancy had no personal knowledge of Ed’s suspected heroin use, the circuit court ruled, and the court of appeals agrees, that the fact that Ed admitted to being drug tested was sufficient foundation for Nancy’s testimony. As a result, Ed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to this evidence fails.

Rusk County DHHS v. R.S., 2022AP1530, District 3, 1/20/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.S. (“Ruth”) argues that at the trial on the County’s petition to terminate her parental rights, the County Department of Health and Human Services didn’t prove it made reasonable efforts to provide the services ordered in the original CHIPS dispositional order. The court of appeals rejects the claim.

L.E.H. v. R.E.M., 2022AP713-715, 11/22/11, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” and “Rebecca” had 3 children together. After their relationship ended, Rebecca struggled with addiction and was charged with a number of crimes. Luke married and successfully petitioned to terminate Rebecca’s parental rights.  Rebecca appealed the TPR arguing the circuit court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on the grounds that she abandoned her children, and (2) created the appearance of bias during the disposition hearing.

Portage County DH & HS v. S.Z. & C.Z., 2022AP1352-1355, 11/17/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This case is the companion of C.Z. & S.Z., decided two weeks ago. C.Z. is the father of the four children at issue; S.Z., the appellant here, is the mother. The opinion here is pretty much a remix of the opinion in the earlier case; both parents raise similar issues and the court similarly rejects them.

Portage County DH & HS v. C.Z & S.Z., 2022AP1249-1252; 11/3/2022, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.Z. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his four children. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. A.A.L., 2022AP1074, 10/11/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity 

A parent’s failure to meet the conditions for the return of her child due to her incarceration is not a constitutional basis for finding her an unfit parent during the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding. Kenosha County DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845. “Alexis” argued that the circuit court violated this rule when it found grounds to terminate her rights to “Tom” based on continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. The court of appeals disagreed.