On Point blog, page 10 of 12
Voluntary TPR reversed; circuit court lacked proper evidentiary foundation to support decision to terminate
Caroline P. v. Shawn H., 2014AP2004 & 2014AP2005, District 3, 6/24/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Even if the circuit court considered the statutory factors for termination of parental rights under § 48.426, the court lacked an evidentiary foundation in the record to make a determination as to whether termination was in the best interests of the child.
Court properly exercised discretion in severing legal ties of grandmother in TPR disposition
State v. Jasmine W., 2014AP2960 & 2014AP2961, District 1, 3/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2960; 2014AP2961
The circuit court applied the proper standard of law to the relevant fact when it declined to place Jasmine’s children with their grandmother, found no substantial relationship between the children and their grandmother, and concluded that it would not cause harm to sever the legal ties between the children and their grandmother.
Parent’s request to revisit TPR order wasn’t supported by new evidence
State v. Tamara B., 2014AP1714, District 1, 2/10/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Tamara requested a new dispositional hearing in the case that terminated her parental rights to her daughter Tamijah, saying there was new evidence that affected the advisability of the termination order. The circuit court properly determined that the evidence she presented wasn’t new.
Ch. 48 does not require transfer of child custody to a relative after parental rights are terminated
State v. Jevon S. Appeal Nos. 2014AP1426 & 2014AP1427; State v. Latoya M., Appeal Nos. 2014AP1424 & 2014AP1425, District 1, 9/16/14 (one-judge opinions, ineligible for publication); (case activity for Jevon S.; case activity for Latoya M.)
Jevon S. and Latoya M. appealed orders terminating their parental rights. Neither contested the grounds for termination, but at their joint dispositional hearing they both wanted their two children removed from their separate foster homes and placed with Jevon’s mother. The circuit court ruled against them, and the court of appeals affirmed.
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.
Court appropriately considered sec. 48.426 adoptability factors before ordering TPR
State v. Shymika S.W., 2013AP2415, District 1, 2/4/14 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity
Issue: Whether, in terminating Shymika S.W.’s parental rights to her daughter, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by ignoring § 48.426(3)’s “adoptability factors?” Those factors are found in § 48.426(3)(a) and (f), and they require consideration of the likelihood of the child’s adoption after termination and whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of termination,
Failure to object forfeits error in TPR case and prevents showing of harmful error
Barron County DH&HS v. Tara H., 2013AP2250, District 3, 12/27/13, unpublished; case activity
This is Tara H.’s 2nd trip to the court of appeals regarding this TPR. The first time she won a new dispositional hearing. At the start of that 2nd dispositional hearing, Tara’s counsel asked the trial court about the relevant time period for determining whether termination of her parental rights was in her son’s best interests.
TPR — consideration of harm of severing family connection; rejection of guardianship by paternal grandmother
State v. Angie S., 2013AP1412, District 1, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals rejects Angie S.’s arguments that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when terminating her parental rights by: (1) failing to properly consider the effect of termination on the child’s biological family; and (2) inadequately considering whether the child’s paternal grandmother was a suitable candidate for guardianship.
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 — dispositional hearing; proper exercise of discretion
State v. Marquese H., 2013AP565, 2013AP566, & 2013AP567, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP565; 2013AP566; 2013AP567
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Marquese H.’s parental rights because it considered the factors under § 48.426(1). The court rejects Marquese’s specific claim that the circuit court erred because, under § 48.426(1)(c) and Darryl T.-H.