On Point blog, page 9 of 15
Circuit court may consider foster parents’ intent to allow contact with children after TPR is final
State v. M.P., 2016AP2104 & 2016AP2105, District 1, 10/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the dispositional hearing on the petition to terminate M.P.’s parental rights to his two children the court heard evidence that the foster parents intended to allow M.P. to continue to have contact with the children if his parental rights were terminated. (¶8). The court of appeals rejects M.P.’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this evidence.
Evidence sufficient to establish TPR grounds
Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. C.C., 2017AP750, District 2, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing in C.C.’s TPR proceeding was sufficient to establish that she failed to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6).
Directing TPR verdict was harmless error
State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1413 & 2017AP1414, District 1, 10/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/14/18, reversed, 2019 WI 14; case activity
The circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the state during the grounds phase of the TPR proceedings against C.L.K. without allowing him the opportunity to present evidence. The court of appeals agrees this was error, but holds the error was harmless.
Termination of parental rights affirmed despite lack of evidence regarding the “best interests of the child”
M.R.B. v. S.S., 2017AP1217-1219, 10/5/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This slim opinion delivers hard blows to a father resisting the termination of his parental rights. They concern circuit court competency, a request for a continuance, and the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether termination was in the best interests of his children. The court of appeals’ reasoning on the last point supplies fodder for a petition for review.
Placing children with their maternal grandfather was not in their best interests
State v. C.L.H., 2017AP1278-1280, 9/6/17, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court terminated C.L.H.’s parental rights to her biological children, A.L.H., H.H. and M.J.H. The sole issue on appeal was whether the circuit court’s refusal to place the kids with C.H. (their maternal grandfather) and E.B. (his fiancée) amounted to an erroneous exercise of discretion. The court of appeals said “no.”
Challenges to successive TPR proceeding don’t succeed
State v. K.J. & State v. A.W., 2016AP1501/1502 and 2017AP720/721, District 1, 8/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2016AP1501; 2016AP1502; 2017AP720; 2017AP721
The circuit court didn’t lose competency to terminate the parental rights of K.J. and A.W. after an initial TPR petition failed, nor did the doctrine of issue preclusion apply to the second TPR trial.
No error in TPR no-contest procedure or court’s consideration of likely contact with birth parent
State v. M.W., 2016AP2045 & 2046, 7/11/17, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. pled no contest to a continuing CHIPS ground in the initial phase of the termination of her parental rights. She argues on appeal that the court erred in hearing factual basis testimony after her plea colloquy and in finding unfitness when she did not agree with some of the factual basis presented.
No error in admitting foster parent’s future contact testimony or in proving up father’s no-contest plea
State v. A.S.F., 2016AP2076, and State v. V.C., Jr., 2016AP2077, both District 1, 7/11/17 (one-judge decisions ineligible for publication); case activity: A.S.F.; V.C.
In this pair of decisions addressing the termination of the parental rights of both parents of J.T.C., the court of appeals rejects the parents’ claim that it was error to allow J.T.C.’s adoptive parent to testify that she would allow contact between the child and members of his biological family if the court terminated the parents’ rights. The court also rejects V.C.’s argument that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence from A.S.F.’s trial to “prove up” the factual basis for V.C.’s no-contest plea to the petition.
Court of appeals affirms TPR of dad who moved out of Wisconsin
State v. J.L.C., 2017AP197, 5/2/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.L.C. argued that the circuit court erroneously terminated his parental rights to his son, K.C., because J.L.C. moved to Arizona, not because J.L.C. failed to provide a safe environment.
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.