On Point blog, page 14 of 16
TPR — improper “golden rule” argument to jury
State v. Samantha S., 2013AP1503 & 2013AP1504, District 1, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1503; 2013AP1504
During closing arguments at the fact-finding hearing the guardian ad litem referred to Samantha’s failure to keep visitation appointments and said this failure confused the children, who as a consequence were becoming attached to the foster caregivers. (¶2). The court holds this statement did not amount to an improper “golden rule”
TPR — sufficiency of evidence establishing parent would not meet conditions for return of children
State v. Shipria C., 2013AP637, 2013AP638, & 2013AP639, District 1, 8/6/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP637; 2013AP638; 2013AP639
In a fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals rejects Shipria C.’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove she would not meet the court-ordered conditions for the return of her children within nine months of the fact-finding hearing.
TPR — continuing CHIPS; sufficiency of the evidence that parent will likely not meet the required conditions for return of the child
Kenosha County DHS v. Debra S.A., 2013AP318, District 2, 7/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent decision that applies the well-established sufficiency standard (¶10), the court concludes the evidence at the fact-finding hearing permitted the trier of fact to conclude that Debra had not complied with requirements that she actively participate in mental health services and successfully complete and demonstrate an understanding of the principles taught in a parenting program and that she would not meet these conditions within nine months.
TPR — consideration of parent’s incarceration; exercise of discretion at disposition
State v. Roy W., 2013AP413, District 1, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects Roy W.’s arguments that “virtually every” factor under § 48.426(3) weighed in his favor and that the only ground for terminating his parental rights was his sixteen month prison sentence. (¶1). Based on a lengthy review of the record and the circuit court’s reasoning for terminating Roy’s parental rights (¶¶2-9,
TPR — failure to assume parental responsibility: sufficiency of evidence; constitutionality of ground as applied
Langlade County DSS v. Michael P., 2013AP385, 2013AP386, & 2013AP387, District 3, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP385; 2013AP386; 2013AP387
Sufficiency of evidence
Based on the entire record of the fact-finding hearing, the court of appeals concludes there was sufficient evidence that Michael P. failed to assume parental responsibility, despite his testimony tending to show he did assume responsibility:
¶26 …[I]t is clear that Michael did not have a “substantial parental relationship” with his children over the course of their lives.
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.
TPR – Best Interest of Child
State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶11 Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s best interest. Effectually, Robert argues that the trial court did not properly consider the factors set forth in Wis.
TPR – Best Interests Determination
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;
TPR – Default; TPR – Right to Present Evidence
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.
TPR – Grounds, Sufficiency of Evidence; TPR – Termination Phase, Exercise of Discretion
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,