On Point blog, page 5 of 5
TPR – Default; TPR – Right to Present Evidence
State v. Laura M., 2011AP2828, District 1, 3/27/12
court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Laura M.: Russell D. Bohach; case activity
The trial court properly exercised discretion in finding Laura M. in default when she failed to appear for trial on TPR grounds. A father of one of her children, Padrein K., called counsel to report that he had been stabbed and that Laura M.
TPR – Default Judgment as to Grounds – Sufficiency of Evidence; § 48.415(6) – Constitutional Challenge, Vagueness
Dane Co. DHS v. Sophia S., 2011AP2639, District 4, 2/23/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity
Although the parent isn’t required to object to the sufficiency of evidence adduced in support of a default judgment on grounds for termination (the court rejecting the County’s argument on this point), there was a sufficient factual basis for the default.
TPR – Default as Sanction; Formal Advice as to Rights – Harmless Error
State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir
TPR – Default as Sanction
Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,
TPR – Exercise of Discretion
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaDonna E.: Jane S. Earle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.
TPR – Right to Appearance by Counsel, Notwithstanding Parent’s Default in Failing to Personally Appear at Fact-Finding Phase
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may deny a parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding the statutory right to counsel when the parent has appeared in the proceeding but failed to personally attend a hearing in contravention of a court order and is found in default as a sanction for disobeying the court order.” (¶2)
Holding:
¶41 We do not accept the State’s position for three reasons.
TPR – Default as Sanction for Failure to Appear
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 3:
The circuit court did not order a default under Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5). Shirley E. had “appeared” at the hearing by her attorney. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶17, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768.The circuit court found Shirley E.