On Point: E. Procedure

Dane Co. DHS v. Jennifer F., 2011AP530, District 4, 6/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer F.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court erred in not taking testimony in support of no-contest pleas to the TPR petition as required by § 48.422(3) (see Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, ¶56, 233 Wis.

State v. Henry W., 2011AP693, District 1, 6/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry W.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

Testimony of a “bonding expert” as to how the child’s view of her father would make it difficult for him to meet conditions of return, was relevant and admissible in the grounds phase, ¶¶5-7, 10.

Trial court’s refusal to grant adjournment of dispositional phase so that father could secure his own bonding expert,

Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2011 WI 6, affirming unpublished decision; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶3   Given that a finding of parental unfitness does not necessarily result in an involuntary termination of parental rights, we determine that the circuit court was not obligated to inform Brenda that by pleading no contest she was waiving her constitutional right to parent. 

Marathon County Dept. of Social Services v. Lorie O., 2010AP2351, District 3, 12/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Summary judgment may be granted as to grounds for TPR, Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶6; but where the CHIPS order, on which alleged unfitness is premised, fails to set forth conditions for regaining contact with the child,

State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir

TPR – Default as Sanction

Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,

State v. Kenneth E., 2010AP1520, District 1, 12/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kenneth E.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

(The Court’s Case Access site has posted Kenneth E.’s principal and reply briefs. This is atypical; the court’s normal practice is not to post briefs, because of the confidentiality that attends TPRs.  Though seemingly not barred by statute or rule, links to the briefs won’t be provided here in deference to the court’s past practice,

State v. LaDonna E., 2010AP1733, District 1, 12/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaDonna E.: Jane S. Earle

Termination of parental rights upheld. Mother (LaDonna E.), after defaulting on grounds phase, challenged termination on basis that child’s aunt, who had custody and wanted to adopt child, should be appointed guardian instead.

¶9        The circuit court noted that “Kenny will be adopted.”  See Wis.

Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm

The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment.

¶7        …  First, Steven V. explained that its discussion of the use of summary judgment procedure on grounds proven by documentary evidence versus those proven by non-documentary evidence was not “mean[t] to imply that the general categorization of statutory grounds in this and the preceding paragraph represent a definitive statement about the propriety of summary judgment in any particular case.”  Id.

State v. Jesenia R., 2009AP2906, District 1, 8/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

No prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure to object to violation of the change-of-placement notice requirement in § 48.357. ¶¶15-16.

The background is a bit fact-intensive. Roughly: The child (Elizabeth) had been placed with a foster family, who moved to Idaho and took Elizabeth with them,

Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti

TPR – Evidence

Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.