On Point: E. Procedure

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti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.

Rock Co. DHS v. Calvin M. M., No. 2010AP816, District IV, 6/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley

Admission of hearsay, describing an act of domestic violence was harmless:

¶7        There are two reasons why we conclude admitting this apparent hearsay evidence was harmless error. We first observe that one of the elements the County had to prove at trial was that Calvin had not met all of the conditions for return.

court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky

TPR – Plea to Grounds

In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

TPR
Plea to grounds upheld, in light of trial court credibility determinations at post-termination evidentiary hearing, against claim Benny didn’t understand State’s burden of proof, 2-stage nature of TPR, or finding of unfitness as necessary consequence of plea.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James M.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Voluntariness of Plea

¶24      Because Wisconsin statutory law does not permit a court to terminate parental rights upon a finding of unfitness without completing the dispositional phase, we see no rationale for requiring a court to inform a parent that a finding of unfitness results in the automatic loss of the constitutional right to parent.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

TPR – Closing Argument
County’s closing argument exhorting jury to consider that gal “represents the child and what’s best for the child” merely described “how the parties and their attorneys were aligned,” not that jury “should consider the ‘best interest’ of the child.”

TPR – Evidence
Evidence that Amber voluntarily terminated her rights to her firstborn child was probative of “the fact to be proven,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Stipulation, Grounds
Signed stipulation to grounds, which effectively withdrew jury demand, upheld where trial court addressed parent in court and on record, and she “acknowledged her understanding clearly, repeatedly, and without equivocation.”

TPR – New Evidence
Postdisposition change in placement affect “advisability of the original adjudication” and therefore didn’t amount to “new evidence”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

TPR – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
“Wis. Stat. § 822.23 does not require a court to dismiss a custody action as soon as it discovers that another state had entered a custody order for the child when the action was commenced in this state.  It prohibits the court from modifying the custody determination of another state unless the other court has declined jurisdiction,” ¶15.