On Point: G. Disposition, Secs. 48.426-427

State v. La’Drea L., 2012AP1984 and State v. Ricky B., 2012AP2027, District 1, 2/20/13; consolidated court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: LaDrea L.; Ricky B.

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it determined termination was in the children’s best interests because it considered all of the statutory factors under Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3). The circuit court “did not say the precise words” of,

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;

Kathleen N. v. Brenda L. C., 2010AP2737, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brenda l.C.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Brenda isn’t entitled to a new TPR trial in the interests of justice, notwithstanding a line of inquiry that went to the respective financial capabilities of Brenda and her sister’s family (which sought the termination). “The evidence established that Brenda had last seen Samantha approximately six months prior to the hearing at a family gathering and had only spoken to Samantha at that event for a few minutes,

State v. Lorraine J. / Johnny J., 2010AP137, et al,District 1, 12/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.:  Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau

TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation

A termination order severs all parental rights, including visitation under § 48.43, ¶¶31-37.

TPR – Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation

Grant of a post-disposition motion,

Dane Co. DHS v. Samuel W., 2009AP2606 , District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Samuel W.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Under Sheboygan County DHHS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55, although a CHIPS dispositional order must set forth the “specific services” to be provided, it may do so implicitly. Applying that holding here, the court of appeals concludes that the conditions for return in the CHIPS order were not so “generic”

State v. Jesenia R., 2009AP2906, District 1, 8/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

No prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure to object to violation of the change-of-placement notice requirement in § 48.357. ¶¶15-16.

The background is a bit fact-intensive. Roughly: The child (Elizabeth) had been placed with a foster family, who moved to Idaho and took Elizabeth with them,

Ozaukee Co. HSD v. Sarah H., 2010AP416, District 2, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sarah H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

A CHIPS dispositional order placing a child with a local department and requiring that services be provided to child and family satisfies Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55:

¶5        … What this comes down to is an argument that the dispositional order must contain a magical phrase—“supervision,

Sheboygan Co. DHHS v. Tanya M.B. / William S.L., 2010 WI 55, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; for Tanya M.B.: Paul G. Bonneson; for William L.: Thomas K. Voss

CHIPS order entered under § 48.355(2)(b)1 “shall contain … specific services to be provided”; subsequent TPR based on lack of compliance with CHIPS conditions requires that the responsible agency made a reasonable effort to provide the ordered services.

Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159

Grounds

Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a):

¶16      Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to the disposition and then will either terminate the parent’s rights or dismiss the petition if the evidence does not warrant termination.

Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4, 3/29/07 (published)

Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits, Generally

Issue/Holding:1: Generally, compliance with a statutory TPR time limit is mandatory, such that non-compliance results in lost circuit court competency absent an applicable exception, ¶5, citing Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, ¶63.

Issue/Holding:2: The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of lost judicial competency for lapse of a time limit without obtaining a proper extension under § 48.315,