On Point blog, page 5 of 5
TPR – Request for Admissions
Dane Co. DHS v. Kevin D., 2011AP2748, District 4, 2/2/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin: Steven Zaleski; case activity
Kevin’s failure to respond to the County requests for admission, § 804.11(2), led the trial court to deem those requests admitted, and then to grant summary judgment as to grounds based on the “deemed admissions.” The court of appeals rejects Kevin’s challenge to the admissions: he was given adequate notice as to the consequences for failure to respond,
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy F.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity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),
TPR – Partial Summary Judgment
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity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,
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds (Abandonment)
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm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.
TPR- Ineffective Assistance – Change of Placement, Warnings; Disposition, Exercise of Discretion
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate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,
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,
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.