On Point blog, page 25 of 26
TPR — Prior TPR as Grounds, Based on Default Judgment
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order was based on her default for failing to personally appear at the fact-finding hearing.
Holding:
¶27 We agree with the court of appeals that to require more evidence than a prior involuntary termination order to satisfy Wis.
TPR — Partial Summary Judgment (as to Fact-Finding Hearing) – Basis and Proof – Prior TPR, Grounds for
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order did not state the explicit § 48.415 ground relied on.
Holding:
¶2 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10)(b) does not require proof of which § 48.415 ground was relied upon for a prior termination of parental rights because the phrase,
TPR – Sufficiency of Warnings, Prior CHIPS Proceeding
Dane co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4 court of appeals, 3/29/07 (published)
Issue/Holding:
¶19 Dyanne acknowledges that the CHIPS order makes reference to “warnings” and contains the statutory language defining the possible grounds for termination. She also does not dispute that the order contains the conditions that were necessary for Artavia’s return. Dyanne’s argument is limited to an assertion that the order fails to sufficiently connect the warning language to the statutory language.
Parental Responsibility / Fitness, § 48.415(6) – Relevance of Father’s Conduct After Discovery He Is Child’s Father
State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77, reversing a summary order remanding the case to the court of appeals.
Issue/Holding:
¶5 For the reasons set forth, we hold that in determining whether a party seeking termination of parental rights has proven by clear and convincing evidence that a biological father has failed to assume parental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6), a circuit court must consider the biological father’s efforts undertaken after he discovers that he is the father but before the circuit court adjudicates the grounds of the termination proceeding.
TPR – Right to Appearance by Counsel, Notwithstanding Parent’s Default in Failing to Personally Appear at Fact-Finding Phase
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may deny a parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding the statutory right to counsel when the parent has appeared in the proceeding but failed to personally attend a hearing in contravention of a court order and is found in default as a sanction for disobeying the court order.” (¶2)
Holding:
¶41 We do not accept the State’s position for three reasons.
TPR – Default as Sanction for Failure to Appear
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 3:
The circuit court did not order a default under Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5). Shirley E. had “appeared” at the hearing by her attorney. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶17, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768.The circuit court found Shirley E.
Voluntariness of Plea to Grounds for Termination, Procedure for Challenging, Confusion of Parent
Kenosha Co. DHS v. Jodi W. 2006 WI 93, reversing summary order
Issue/Holding: The circuit court must undertake a colloquy with the parent tracking § 48.422(7); the parent must know the rights being waived; and on a challenge to the plea the parent must make a prima facie showing that the colloquy was defective and also allege a lack of understanding of the omitted information, ¶¶25-26,
TPR, Sufficiency of Evidence — Jury Verdict That State Failed to Prove Grounds
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264
Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary.
Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe that the State proved the six-month period of abandonment, the trial court’s refusal to change the verdict answer or to grant a new trial was not ‘clearly wrong,’” ¶1.
TPR – Substitution of Judge
Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57
Issue/Holding:
¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which allows a request “either before or during the plea hearing ….”
TPR – Issue Preclusion, Applicability of Doctrine
Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57
Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9. (The court remands for determination of whether issue preclusion is appropriate in this instance,