On Point blog, page 20 of 26
Alleged evidentiary errors don’t require new TPR trial
Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2014AP398 & 2014AP399, District 4, 7/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP398; 2014AP399
Mable K. is not entitled to a new grounds trial based on two alleged evidentiary errors—the admission of evidence about her lack of contact with her children after the period of alleged abandonment, and the admission of evidence of specific instances of her prior untruthful conduct—because there was overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.
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”).
Mother’s no-contest plea in TPR was knowing and voluntary
State v. Connie P., 2013AP2854, District 1, July 1, 2014 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Connie’s no-contest plea at the grounds phase of her TPR proceeding was knowing and voluntary despite her post-termination assertion that she was unduly influenced by the trial court’s comments before the scheduled trial and by the decision of her child’s father, Ray, to stipulate to grounds for termination.
Suspension of visitation while TPR was pending did not violate due process
State v. Delano W., 2013AP2445 & 2013AP2446, District 1, 3/14/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP2445; 2013AP2446
The trial court did not violate Delano’s due process rights and properly exercised its discretion when it prohibited Delano from visitation with his children pending the trial on a petition to terminate his parental rights to those children.
Under § 48.42(1m),
Allowing testimony of foster parent at TPR grounds hearing was not improper
Wood County Human Services Dep’t v. Melanie M., 2013AP2814, 2013AP2815, & 2013AP2816, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP2814; 2013AP2815; 2013AP2816
Foster parent testimony during the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding has the potential to be prejudicial because it creates a risk the jury will reach a verdict by comparing the biological parent to the foster parent;
Conditionally admitting evidence during TPR grounds hearing when evidence was relevant only to disposition was harmless error
Dane County DHS v. Nancy M., 2013AP1886 & 2013AP1887, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1886; 2013AP1887
During the first day of a fact-finding hearing to the court to determine whether there were grounds to terminate Nancy’s parental rights, the trial court admitted evidence about Nancy’s bonding with her two children. Nancy objected, and the County and GAL agreed the line of questioning was not relevant to the grounds phase of the TPR proceeding,
TPR — propriety of summary judgment in cases alleging abandonment
Dane County DHS v. Wesley J., 2013AP1226, District 4, 8/1/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856, does not erect a general bar to summary judgment in TPR cases alleging abandonment as the grounds for termination:
¶15 I disagree with Wesley’s assertion that Steven V.
TPR: Waiver of jury and stipulation to elements doesn’t survive subsequent appeal, reversal, and remand
Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J.W., 2013 WI App 102; consolidated case activity: 2012AP2387; 2012AP2388
The County petitioned to terminate Roberta’s parental rights in 2007 on the grounds her children were in continuing need of protection and services. After a jury trial and dispositional hearing her rights were terminated, but on appeal the termination order was reversed and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. (¶4).
TPR — Failure to assume parental responsibility: special verdict questions; instruction that lack of opportunity and ability is not a defense. Abandonment: Leave to amend petition
Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background:
Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in January 2012, alleging failure to assume parental responsibility and six months of abandonment.
Court of Appeals Enforces Stipulation to Forgo Appeal in TPR Case; Denies Discretionary Reversal
Ronald J.R. v. Alexis L.A., 2013 WI App 79; case activity
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment decision finding grounds to terminate Alexis L.A.’s parental rights. The father, Ronald J.R., sought termination on two grounds and won summary judgment on the first one. The parties then stipulated that Ronald would withdraw the second ground, if Alexis would agree not to appeal the partial summary judgment on the first ground.