On Point: F. Fact-finding, Sec. 48.424

State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:

¶30      Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance.  She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she:  (1) is still on probation;

State v. Laura M., 2011AP2828, District 1, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Laura M.: Russell D. Bohach; case activity

The trial court properly exercised discretion in finding Laura M. in default when she failed to appear for trial on TPR grounds. A father of one of her children, Padrein K., called counsel to report that he had been stabbed and that Laura M.

State v. Marquis O., 2011AP2642, District 1, 2/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquis O.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Grounds for terminating parental rights upheld, against argument that Bureau of Child Welfare didn’t make reasonable effort to provide services for Marquis O. to meet conditions for child’s return to him.

¶5        The termination of Marquis O.’s parental rights to Mariyana was based on the child’s having,

Barron County v. Tara H., 2012AP2390, District 3, 1/15/13

Court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

TPR — Exercise of discretion in determining disposition

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to consider one of the six factors under § 48.426(3)–specifically, whether the child had a substantial relationship with Tara or other family members, and whether it would be harmful to sever those relationships;

Dane Co. DHS v. Lee H., 2011AP1138, District 4, 12/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lee H.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

The trial court did not err in directing answers to special verdict questions with respect to two elements of grounds for terminating parental rights (existence of order containing TPR notice placing the child outside the parent’s home; failure to visit or communicate with child 3 months or longer).

State v. Beverly H., 2011AP536, District 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beverly H.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The trial court didn’t err in denying the parent’s request for an adjournment of dispositional hearing, following jury verdict finding grounds to terminate. The court of appeals rejects the argument that § 48.31(7)(a) controls the issue.

¶2        This Court disagrees with Beverly H.’s arguments on appeal. 

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,

Winnebago County DHS v. Jenny L. G.-J., 2009AP2956, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jenny L. G.-J.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

The privilege attaching to interactions under direction of a family therapist, § 905.04(1)(b), doesn’t apply to information obtained by “dispositional staff” providing services under § 48.069.

¶11      Wisconsin Stat. § 48.069(1) defines a dispositional staffer as a member of “[t]he staff of the department [of children and families],

State v. Abigail W., 2010AP2792, District 1, 2/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Abigail W.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

TPR – Condition of Return

CHIPS condition that parent “show that you can care for and supervise your child properly and that you understand [her] special needs” wasn’t an impossible condition but, rather, was narrowly tailored to meet compelling State interest in protecting child’s safety,

Dane Co. DHS v. Brittany W., No. 2009AP2778, District IV, 7/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not fo publication); for Brittany W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects Brittany’s claim she didn’t understand the consequence of her no-contest plea (that she would be deemed unfit, and that disposition would turn on the child’s best interests), given the trial judge’s finding that the denial of such knowledge wasn’t credible,