On Point blog, page 19 of 27
GAL’s representation of corporation counsel in unrelated matter didn’t create conflict of interest in TPR case
La Crosse County HSD v. C.J.T., 2015AP252, District 4, 10/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The fact that the County’s attorney handling this TPR proceeding retained the GAL in the case to represent the her in an unrelated personal injury matter didn’t create a conflict of interest that required a new trial.
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.
Parent didn’t show her failure to appear at dispostional hearing was excusable neglect justifying reopening of TPR
State v. M.H., 2015AP711, District 1, 9/1/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that M.H. had not shown that her termination of parental rights proceeding should be reopened based on her “excusable neglect” in failing to appear at the dispositional hearing.
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.
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to argue it was impossible for parent to assume parental duties
Dane County DHS v. D.M., 2014AP2291, District 4, 7/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for arguing § 48.415(6) is unconstitutional as applied to D.M., as she fails to demonstrate that the County made it impossible for her to satisfy the conditions for return of her child, D.L.
Trial counsel in TPR reasonably advised incarcerated parent to admit grounds for termination
Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.
Trial court’s errors in taking admission to TPR grounds were harmless
State v. Jodie A., 2015AP46 & 2015AP47, District 1, 7/7/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court that accepted Jodie A.’s admission as to grounds to terminate her parental rights failed to comply with two of the requirements for accepting an admission set forth in § 48.422(7)—namely, the court didn’t inquire about adoptive resources and didn’t require the submission of a report concerning potential financial exchanges. The errors were harmless, however.
Notice requirements were satisfied by CHIPS extension order that incorporated by reference terms of original order
State v. Amelia A., 2015AP630 & 2015AP631, District 1, 6/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While the order extending the placement of Amelia’s children outside of her home did not specifically recite the conditions she needed to meet for the return of her children, the extension order specifically incorporated by reference the original CHIPS order, which did recite the conditions Amelia had to meet for return of the children and warned that failing to meet the conditions could result in termination of her parental rights. Thus, Amelia received the notice required under §§ 48.356(2) and 48.415(2)(a)1. and Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607.
Using therapist as part of defense against TPR petition waived therapist-patient privilege
State v. Mary G., 2015AP55, 2015AP56, & 2015AP57, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of the trial on a TPR petition, the circuit court properly ordered Mary G. to provide the State with notes from her mental health treatment provider and appropriately considered evidence regarding Mary’s failure to manage her medications.