On Point blog, page 9 of 12
TPR orders withstand multiple challenges
State v. C.R.R./State v. M.R., 2015AP1771 & 2015AP1772, District 3, 4/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects various challenges to orders terminating the parental rights C.R.R. and M.R., the mother and father, respectively, of A.M.R.
Totality of evidence showed mother failed to assume parental responsibility
State v. L.N.S., 2015AP1617, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence regarding the mother’s interaction with her daughter over the daughter’s entire lifetime was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the mother failed to assume parental responsibility.
Colloquy on admission to TPR grounds doesn’t require advisement that incarceration alone can’t be ground for unfitness finding
State v. A.M.B., 2015AP1618, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Andy was incarcerated when his daughter Catie was born and he remained in custody throughout the subsequent CHIPS and TPR proceedings. He ultimately admitted to the continuing CHIPS ground for termination of his parental rights, but now claims his admission was invalid because he was not aware that, under Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, incarceration alone cannot be grounds to terminate parental rights. The court of appeals finds no flaws in his admission.
Court of appeals upholds TPR disposition as in children’s best interest
State v. J.J., 2016AP194 & 2016AP195, 4/12/2016, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.J., the father, appeals the termination of his rights to his two children, J.J. and A.J., challenging not the finding of unfitness but only the court’s determination that termination was in the best interest of each child.
TPR affirmed against welter of challenges
Pierce County v. C.S., 2015AP1463 & 2015AP1464, District 3, 2/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.S. challenges the orders terminating her parental rights to her sons, D. S. and K. S., based on their continuing need for protection or services. She raises multiple, fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and circuit court error. All her claims are rejected.
Court properly exercised discretion in terminating parental rights
Waushara County DHS v. V.L., 2016AP23, District 4, 2/25/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
V.L. challenged the circuit court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to her son R.E.L., arguing the circuit court didn’t properly consider four of the factors under § 48.426(3). The court of appeals finds no erroneous exercise of discretion.
TPR court properly exercised discretion
Rock County HSD v. D.B., 2015AP2420, District 4, 2/11/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects D.B.’s argument that the circuit court terminated her parental rights to T.J. without properly considering the facts that there was no adoptive resource available for T.J. at the time of termination, that a strong bond existed between T.J. and D.B. and T.J.’s older brother, and that T.J. had consistently expressed wishes to be returned to D.B.’s care.
TPR judge adequately considered bond between child and siblings
State v. L.C., 2015AP1460, District 1, 12/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating L.C.’s rights to her child T.C. because, as required by § 48.426(3)(c) and State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 26, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, the court considered whether T.C. had substantial relationships with his mother and siblings and whether severing those relationships would harm T.C.
Father’s stipulation to TPR grounds was valid despite later remarks suggesting he didn’t understand the grounds
State v. K.G., 2015AP245, District 1, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.G.’s stipulation to the failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground alleged in the TPR petition was valid even though K.G.’s later statements during the disposition hearing suggest he misunderstood what the state would have to prove to establish that ground for termination.
Trial court gave adequate consideration to harm resulting from terminating of parental rights
State v. K.K., 2015AP986, 2015AP987, & 2015AP988, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.K. argued that in deciding to terminate her parental rights, the circuit court failed adequately to consider the harm resulting from severing the legal relationship between her and her children given the substantial relationship she had with them. The court of appeals holds the court’s exercise of discretion was proper under Darryl T.-H. v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475.