On Point: E. Procedure

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy F.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beverly H.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity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. 

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer F.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry W.: Jane S. Earle; case activity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 of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2011 WI 6, affirming unpublished decision; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity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.