On Point: E. Procedure

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity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.

Dane Co. DHS v. Kevin D., 2011AP2748, District 4, 2/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin: Steven Zaleski; case activity

Kevin’s failure to respond to the County requests for admission, § 804.11(2), led the trial court to deem those requests admitted, and then to grant summary judgment as to grounds based on the “deemed admissions.” The court of appeals rejects Kevin’s challenge to the admissions: he was given adequate notice as to the consequences for failure to respond,

Racine County HSD v. Roseannah M. H., 2011AP1776, District 2, 1/11/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roseannah: Patrick Flanagan; case activity

On this TPR appeal by the County, the court of appeals upholds an order granting Roseannah’s motion to withdraw her admission to grounds. Such an admission must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, per colloquy governed by § 48.422(7) and due process, ¶5,

Racine County HSD v. Bobby G. H., 2011AP795, District 2, 11/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bobby G.H.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Bobby’s phase-1 admission to termination of parental rights on the ground of failure to assume responsibility didn’t require that the trial court hear testimony before accepting the admission.

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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.

State v. Lakesha M., 2011AP1280, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lakesha M.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Termination of parental rights affirmed, court rejecting argument that procedural requirements of §§ 48.422(8) & 48.422(9)(a) (where petition not brought by agency, court “shall” order parent to provide certain information) violated:

¶5        The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did not file the petitions here.  

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, 

Rock Co. HSD v. Timothy F., 2011AP1354, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy F.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

The court rejects Timothy F.’s challenge to grant of summary judgment as to grounds for termination (abandonment, § 48.415(1)(a)2.): even if Timothy arguably had “good cause” for not visiting his child (Timothy had absconded from probation in fear of possible revocation),

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, 

State v. Beverly H., 2011AP536, District 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beverly H.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The trial court didn’t err in denying the parent’s request for an adjournment of dispositional hearing, following jury verdict finding grounds to terminate. The court of appeals rejects the argument that § 48.31(7)(a) controls the issue.

¶2        This Court disagrees with Beverly H.’s arguments on appeal.