On Point blog, page 7 of 12
Termination of parental rights affirmed
Outagamie County DHHS v. R.P., 2019AP990 & 2019AP991, District 3, 10/1/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating R.P.’s parental rights, and in particular didn’t err by not considering a guardianship instead of termination.
When parent “admits” grounds TPR, court can find her unfit without taking testimony
Walworth County DHS v. S.S.K., 2019AP782, 7/17/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
During the grounds phase of the Walworth County’s TPR case against S.S.K., she “admitted” the ground of continuing CHIPS; she didn’t plead “no contest.” This distinction proved decisive to the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.S.L.
CoA rejects plea, ineffective assistance and new trial claims; affirms TPR order
State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.
TPR attorney wasn’t ineffective; but circuit court erred in refusing to hold dispositional hearing
S.D. v. A.V., 2018AP1150, District 4, 3/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.D. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of A.V., her ex-husband, after he was convicted and sent to prison for possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirms the unfitness finding but remands for a dispositional hearing.
TPR court correctly applied “substantial relationship” standard in dispo phase
State v. M.G., 2018AP835, 10/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.G. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, M.W. He stipulated to unfitness on the ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). On appeal, he contends the circuit court erroneously imported the required finding for this ground–that he lacked a “substantial parental relationship” with the child–into the third factor of the disposition phase, which concerns only “substantial relationship(s)” between the child and M.G. or others in his family. See Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c).
TPR court appropriately considered whether, after termination, children would continue to have contact with biological family
State v. P.J., 2018AP376-2018AP381, 5/30/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
P.J. challenged the termination of her parental rights to her 6 children on the grounds that the circuit court failed to appropriately consider the substantial bond that she had with her children and improperly relied on testimony by the various foster parents that the children would continue to have contact with each other. The court of appeals affirmed.
Defense win! Circuit court didn’t err in declining to terminate parental rights
Dane County DHS v. C.B., 2018AP38 & 39, 4/9/2018, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Yes, that headline is correct: The circuit court did not terminate C.B.’s parental rights, and the court of appeals rejects the County’s challenges to the circuit court’s decision (and admonishes the County’s lawyer for an improper argument).
TPR court properly considered whether children had substantial relationship with mother and her family
State v. L.J., 2017AP2380, 2017AP2381, & 2017AP2382, District 1, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
L.J. argues the circuit court terminated her parental rights to her children without properly considering whether her children had a substantial relationship with her or her family members. The court of appeals disagrees.
Once again, FTA leads to TPR
State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.
Initials, acronyms garble court of appeals opinion in termination of parental rights case
State v. M.K., 2017AP1952-1953, 12/27/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The record for a termination of rights appeal is required by law to be confidential. Thus, in such a case the court of appeals must refer to the individuals involved by their initials, pseudonyms, or other appropriate designations. This rule balances the individual’s right to confidentiality with the public’s right to know how our judges are applying and developing the law. Nobody disputes the wisdom of the rule. On Point questions its application in this particular appeal.