On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA applies and rejects Jodie W. based challenge to “continuning denial” based TPR order
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., 2023AP1229-1232, 11/16/23, District IV (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In Kenosha Cnty. DHHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, ¶56, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, the court overturned a TPR order premised on a parent’s failure to meet “an impossible condition of return, without consideration of any other relevant facts and circumstances particular to the parent.” R.H.H. argued that he was likewise subject to an “impossible” condition of return because the dispositional order that denied him placement or visitation with his four children required him to complete sex offender treatment and domestic violence programming. The court rejects his due process-based claim, for multiple reasons, including that R.H.H., failed to introduce evidence to support his assertions that his confinement in prison or his pending criminal appeal made it “impossible” for him to meet his conditions of return. (Op., ¶21).
CoA rejects plea, ineffective assistance and new trial claims; affirms TPR order
State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.
Erroneous admission of social worker’s expert testimony on ultimate issue was harmless
Dane County D.H.S. v. J.B., 2016AP2422, District 4, 2/16/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
To terminate parental rights based on the “continuing CHIPS” ground, the jury had find that there was a substantial likelihood that JB would not meet the conditions for the safe return of her child within 9 months of the hearing. §48.415(2)(a). The circuit court admitted a social worker’s expert testimony on this issue, apparently without following §907.02 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals. The court of appeals assumed error but declared it harmless.
TPR court didn’t err in admitting children’s hearsay statements or expert “bonding” testimony
State v. D.L., 2016AP735 & 2016AP736, District 1, 8/18/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court didn’t err in admitting multiple hearsay statements made by D.L.’s children about her treatment of them or in admitting expert testimony about whether D.L. had a “strong bond” or “positive and healthy relationships” with her children.
Counsel at TPR trial wasn’t ineffective
Barron County DHHS v. J.H., 2015AP1529, District 3, 1/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.H.’s claims that her trial counsel was ineffective are rejected because trial counsel’s actions were either not deficient or not prejudicial.
Counsel’s failure to object to expert testimony and hearsay during TPR trial wasn’t ineffective
State v. Johnnie J., 2014AP144 & 2014AP145, District 1, 8/21/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP144; 2014AP145
Assuming trial counsel should have objected to certain expert opinion evidence and hearsay evidence about Johnnie’s behavior, the failure to do so didn’t prejudice Johnnie because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdicts on one of the two grounds for terminating her parental rights.
TPR – “Bonding Expert”; Dispositional Phase Adjournment
State v. Henry W., 2011AP693, District 1, 6/7/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry W.: Jane S. Earle; case activity
Testimony of a “bonding expert” as to how the child’s view of her father would make it difficult for him to meet conditions of return, was relevant and admissible in the grounds phase, ¶¶5-7, 10.
Trial court’s refusal to grant adjournment of dispositional phase so that father could secure his own bonding expert,
Admissibility of Evidence — Expert Opinion Testimony on TPR Parent’s Ability to Meet Condition for Child’s Return
Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion
Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children.
Holding:
¶40 In deciding the issue of foundation, the circuit court seemed fixated on the psychological tests that Dr.