On Point blog, page 13 of 16
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.
Child’s guardians can participate as a party in TPR proceeding
Green County DHS v. Barret W.S., 2014AP1155, District 4, 8/14/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court didn’t err by allowing a child’s guardians to participate as a party in a proceeding to terminate the father’s rights to the child because, while ch. 48 does not expressly state that guardians are “parties” in a termination proceeding, pertinent statutes support allowing the guardians to participate as a party. In addition, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment against the father and didn’t err in making certain evidentiary rulings during the dispositional phase.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective for not objecting to nonstandard five-sixths verdict instruction in TPR case
State v. Jimmy J., 2014AP573, District 1, 8/5/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel had a reasonable strategic reason for not objecting to court’s instructing TPR jury that while agreement of 10 or more jurors was necessary as to each verdict question, the same 10 jurors should agree on all the answers.
Court did not erroneously exercise discretion in disposition of TPR case
State v. Dwayne F., Jr., 2014AP595, District 1, 6/10/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the best interests of Dwayne F.’s daughter would be served by a guardianship with the Child Welfare Bureau for adoption by her foster family, instead of placement with Dwayne F.’s father.
Evidence was sufficient to show mother failed to assume parental responsibility
Barron County DHHS v. Maria A., 2013AP2735, District 3, 4/1/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Under the highly deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims, State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, ¶30, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Maria failed to assume parental responsibility for her daughter,
TPR petitioner didn’t prove that father failed to assume parental responsibility
Mary E.B. v. Cecil M., 2014AP160, District 2, 3/26/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted, 9/18/14, appeal voluntarily dismissed 12/17/14; case activity
The circuit court properly found that a mother who petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights did not prove the father failed to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6). The court of appeals rejects the mother’s arguments that the circuit court applied an erroneous legal standard and that its decision is not supported by the record.
Suspension of visitation while TPR was pending did not violate due process
State v. Delano W., 2013AP2445 & 2013AP2446, District 1, 3/14/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP2445; 2013AP2446
The trial court did not violate Delano’s due process rights and properly exercised its discretion when it prohibited Delano from visitation with his children pending the trial on a petition to terminate his parental rights to those children.
Under § 48.42(1m),
Termination of rights of cognitively disabled parent didn’t violate due process
State v. Lawanda R., 2013AP1661, District 1/4, 1/16/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly found that a parent with serious cognitive disabilities (she “functions at the level of a child less than ten years old” (¶8)) was unfit under § 48.415(2) on the sole basis that she failed to meet the conditions established by a continuing CHIPS order for the return of Will,
Consent to termination of parental rights deemed voluntary and in the best interests of the child
Jessica G. and Joshua G. v. Alicia L., 2013AP1843, District 2, 11/27/13 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Issue: Whether Alicia’s L’s consent to the termination of her parental rights was voluntary.
¶6 The circuit court may accept a parent’s voluntary consent to TPR only after questioning the parent and determining that the consent is voluntary and informed. Wis. Stat. § 48.41(2)(a). In making its determination,
TPR — evidence of parent’s failure to meet conditions for return of other children under a CHIPS order in a different county
State v. Roberta W., 2013AP936, District 1, 9/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that Roberta W. had failed to meet the conditions for the return of two of her other children under a CHIPS order in a different county because that evidence was relevant under La Crosse County Dept. of Human Servs.