On Point blog, page 1 of 1

Default judgment for failing to appear at TPR hearings affirmed.

Dane County v. L.D.D., 2024AP1267, District IV, 10/24/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating L.D.D.’s parental rights after it entered default judgment when she did not appear at the hearing on grounds to terminate or the disposition hearing.  The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s order denying L.D.D.’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on new evidence.

Read full article >

Post-disposition evidence about a change in child’s placement didn’t merit new disposition hearing

State v. R.G., 2017AP1078, District 1, 11/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After R.G.’s parental rights were terminated the child was removed from the care of D.L., the foster parent at the time of the TPR dispositional hearing and prospective adoptive parent, because D.L. was abusing the child. (¶¶5-6). A new disposition hearing isn’t merited because this new evidence wasn’t sufficient to “affect[] the advisability of the court’s original adjudication” under § 48.46(1) and Schroud v. Milw. Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 53 Wis. 2d 650, 654, 193 N.W.2d 671 (1972). (¶¶10-15).

Read full article >

Parent didn’t show her failure to appear at dispostional hearing was excusable neglect justifying reopening of TPR

State v. M.H., 2015AP711, District 1, 9/1/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that M.H. had not shown that her termination of parental rights proceeding should be reopened based on her “excusable neglect” in failing to appear at the dispositional hearing.

Read full article >

Parent’s request to revisit TPR order wasn’t supported by new evidence

State v. Tamara B., 2014AP1714, District 1, 2/10/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Tamara requested a new dispositional hearing in the case that terminated her parental rights to her daughter Tamijah, saying there was new evidence that affected the advisability of the termination order. The circuit court properly determined that the evidence she presented wasn’t new.

Read full article >

TPR: Waiver of jury and stipulation to elements doesn’t survive subsequent appeal, reversal, and remand

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J.W., 2013 WI App 102; consolidated case activity: 2012AP2387; 2012AP2388 

The County petitioned to terminate Roberta’s parental rights in 2007 on the grounds her children were in continuing need of protection and services. After a jury trial and dispositional hearing her rights were terminated, but on appeal the termination order was reversed and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. (¶4).

Read full article >

Wisconsin Supreme Court: New fact-finding hearing before a jury is the proper remedy for erroneous grant of default judgment due to parent’s tardy appearance at second day of trial

Dane County DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, reversing court of appeals summary order; case activity

¶3        We conclude, and the circuit court has acknowledged, that it erroneously exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment finding that grounds existed to terminate Mable K.’s parental rights after barring her attorney from offering additional evidence. It also erred when it granted the default judgment before taking evidence sufficient to establish the grounds alleged in the amended petitions.

Read full article >

State v. Wilvina S., 2009AP1764, District II, 2/24/2010

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”

Read full article >