On Point blog, page 4 of 5
Two-day wait for TPR default not required where counsel continues
State v. J.B., 2016AP483, 484 & 485, 10/4/2016, District 1 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
2013 Wis. Act 337 created Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3., which permits a TPR court in some circumstances to find that a parent who has defaulted as to grounds by failing to appear has also waived his or her right to counsel. The statute then imposes a two-day waiting period before the court proceeds to disposition. But what if the court finds a parent in default but does not find counsel waived?
Circuit court properly entered default judgment against mom at the grounds phase of TPR proceeding
Waukesha County DH&HS v. K.R.G., 2016AP222, 4/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals here holds that a mom’s failure to follow court orders and failure to make court appearances were egregious enough to justify a default finding of grounds for terminating her parental rights even though she asserted a “desire” and “determination” to participate in the proceeding.
Bid to reopen default TPR judgment fails
Adoptions of Wisconsin, Inc. v. J.S., 2015AP1403, District 3, 1/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court entered a default judgment terminating J.S.’s parental rights after he failed to appear at the hearing scheduled on the petition, and the court of appeals holds J.S. isn’t entitled to reopen that judgment.
Parent’s failure to cooperate with discovery and with her counsel justified default judgment in TPR proceeding
State v. L.M.-N., 2014AP2405 & 2014AP2406, District 1/4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly entered a default judgment in L.M.-N.’s termination of parental rights proceeding based on her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition and, when she did finally appear, by refusing to testify.
Challenges to default TPR judgment rejected
State v. T.N., 2014AP2407 & 2014AP2408, District 4, 9/10/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly entered a default judgment against T.N. in his TPR proceeding when, despite the court’s warnings and admonitions, T.N. failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance.
Court’s discharge of TPR counsel justified under new statute
State v. T.P., 2015AP857, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Recently enacted statutes allow a circuit court to presume that a parent in a TPR proceeding has waived the right to counsel if, after being ordered to appear in court, the parent fails to do so and the court finds that failure egregious and without a justifiable excuse. The circuit court’s application of those statutes in this case didn’t violate the parent’s due process rights.
Court of appeals affirms default judgment against parent in TPR proceeding
State v. Samantha J., 2014AP988, 2014AP989, 2014AP1017, District 1, 9/17/14 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This case is noteworthy in 2 respects. First, the court of appeals upheld a default judgment as to grounds for terminating a mother’s parental rights–always a significant step, given the stakes. And, second, the court of appeals complimented a brief–specifically, the brief filed by the GAL, Linnea Matthiesen.
Failing to appear at TPR grounds hearing justified default judgment
State v. Rickey V., 2014AP334, District 1, 7/8/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Father’s failure to appear at two scheduled evidentiary hearings on whether there were grounds for termination of parental rights was sufficiently “egregious” to justify a default judgment against him under Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶70, 346 Wis. 2d 396, 828 N.W.2d 198 (circuit court may find a parent in default if the parent’s unintentional failure to follow court orders is “‘so extreme, substantial and persistent’ that the conduct may be considered egregious”).
Wisconsin Supreme Court: New fact-finding hearing before a jury is the proper remedy for erroneous grant of default judgment due to parent’s tardy appearance at second day of trial
Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, reversing court of appeals summary order; case activity
¶3 We conclude, and the circuit court has acknowledged, that it erroneously exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment finding that grounds existed to terminate Mable K.’s parental rights after barring her attorney from offering additional evidence. It also erred when it granted the default judgment before taking evidence sufficient to establish the grounds alleged in the amended petitions.
TPR – Default Judgment, Grounds
State v. Yvette A., 2012AP548, District 1, 8/14/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity
Parent’s failure to appear at grounds phase of TPR trial, because she was locked in a mental health unit, supported default judgment, where parent had documented history of checking herself into hospitals despite actual need for psychiatric treatment.
¶13 Because entry of default is a particularly harsh sanction,