On Point blog, page 11 of 26
TPR court had insufficient information to conclude it had jurisdiction
J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children.
Summary judgment at TPR grounds phase reversed due to inadequate notice during CHIPS proceedings
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., Jr., 2018AP2440 to 208AP2443, District 4, 4/4/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase R.H.H.’s termination of parental rights proceedings, the circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of continuing denial of visitation under § 48.415(4). Not so fast, says the court of appeals.
CoA rejects plea, ineffective assistance and new trial claims; affirms TPR order
State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.
Partial defense win! Challenges to sec. 48.415(1)(a)’s pleading requirements fail, but summary judgment reversed
Brown County Human Services v. B.P and T.F., 2019 WI App 18; case activity
T.F. argued that when the Department seeks to terminate parental rights on the grounds of abandonment in a case where the child is out of the home and a CHIPS order is in place, it must proceed under §48.415(1)(a)2., rather than (a)3. T.F. also argued that allowing the Department to proceed under (a)3 would result in an Equal Protection violation. The court of appeals rejected these arguments but held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to T.F. because material facts were in dispute over whether she had good cause for abandoning her daughter, Allie.
No prejudice caused by counsel’s failure to object to admission father’s criminal record at TPR trial
State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?
No error in granting summary judgment in TPR case as to one period of abandonment
Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2. The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate.
Summary judgment in TPR case upheld
Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2.
Circuit court didn’t have to wait 2 days before moving from default on grounds to terminating parental rights
State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here.
Plea to TPR petition valid despite prior finding of incompetency
State v. R.D.S., 2017AP1771, District 1, 9/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
R.D.S. moved to withdraw her no-contest plea to a TPR petition, saying her plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of the cognitive disabilities for which she was found to be incompetent during the underlying CHIPS proceedings and a criminal case involving charges of abuse of her child. The circuit court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, and court of appeals affirms.
Denial of evidentiary hearing in remanded TPR wasn’t erroneous
State v. B.D.S., 2017AP1770, District 1, 8/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.D.S. filed a motion for postdisposition relief seeking to withdraw his no-contest plea to a TPR petition, alleging there was an issue about his competency to understand the proceedings. (¶9). The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion.