On Point blog, page 4 of 4
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),
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.
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,
TPR – Directed Verdict, Grounds – Abandonment
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).
TPR, Sufficiency of Evidence — Jury Verdict That State Failed to Prove Grounds
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264
Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary.
Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe that the State proved the six-month period of abandonment, the trial court’s refusal to change the verdict answer or to grant a new trial was not ‘clearly wrong,’” ¶1.