On Point: E. Procedure

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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James M.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate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.

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

TPR – Elements, Ground of Continuing Need of Protection and Services, Generally

Issue/Holding:

¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice.

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

Issue/Holding: Stipulation to a TPR elements did not constitute withdrawal of the demand for a jury trial, where the element was submitted to, and found by, the jury under the instructions and special verdict form, ¶¶18-24.

The court approvingly analogizes to State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct.

Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159

Grounds

Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a):

¶16      Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to the disposition and then will either terminate the parent’s rights or dismiss the petition if the evidence does not warrant termination.