On Point blog, page 2 of 2
TPR – Default Judgment – Incarcerated Parent
Chester B. v. Larry D., 2011AP926, District 2, 11/2/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Entry of default against parent imprisoned out of state violated his right to due process under the circumstances. On receipt of the petition and summons, Larry contacted the petitioner’s attorney and said he wanted representation. The attorney then contacted the SPD.
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity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 – Removal of Element from Jury – Closing Argument, Misstatement, Interest of Justice
Florence County Department of Human Services v. Jennifer B., 2011AP88, District 3, 8/19/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Removal from jury consideration of a ground for termination (CHIPS orders) without prior discussion between court and parties was error:
¶10 While we agree that a directed verdict is available in the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding,
TPR, Sufficiency of Evidence — Jury Verdict That State Failed to Prove Grounds
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264
Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary.
Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe that the State proved the six-month period of abandonment, the trial court’s refusal to change the verdict answer or to grant a new trial was not ‘clearly wrong,’” ¶1.