On Point blog, page 9 of 12
Defense win: TPR order reversed because it was based on circuit court’s mistake about its authority
T.M.H. v. A.N.W., 2016AP1981, District 4, 12/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The biological father of J.H. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother, A.W. The circuit court granted the petition, but only after concluding it could order continued visitation between J.H. and his maternal great-grandmother, with whom J.H. had an important relationship. It turns out the circuit court did not have that authority. Because the circuit court said it “absolutely, positively” would not terminate A.W.’s rights unless it could order continued visitation by the great-grandmother, the termination order is reversed.
TPR decision affirmed
State v. T.R.D., 2016AP1413, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.R.D. challenges the circuit court’s conclusions that she was an unfit parent and that it was in the best interests of her child for T.R.D.’s parental rights to be terminated. The court of appeals rejects the challenges.
TPR “bonding” evidence not prejudicial; court didn’t have to consider relationship with great-grandmother
Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both.
Court of appeals: no error in TPR disposition phase
Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest.
Post-disposition change of child’s placement doesn’t merit new dispositional hearing
State v. T.L.T., 2016AP471, District 1, 8/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Five months after the circuit court terminated T.L.T.’s parental rights to E.A.T., child welfare authorities moved E.A.T. from his foster placement with V.B. to a new adoptive foster home. T.L.T. argues the termination decision rested heavily on the prospect V.B. would adopt E.A.T., so the post-disposition change in placement materially affects that decision. (¶¶2-12). She asks the court of appeals to exercise its discretionary power to reverse under § 752.35 because the real controversy was not tried and justice miscarried. (¶¶15-16). The court of appeals declines.
TPR court properly excluded evidence offered by parent
State v. C.A.P., 2016AP824, District 1, 7/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While § 48.427(1) gives a parent the right to present evidence and be heard at a dispositional hearing, in this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding two of C.A.P.’s witnesses and denying her request to recall a witness who testified earlier.
Evidence sufficient to support TPR order
State v. J.M., 2016AP817 & 2016AP817, District 1, 7/6/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence introduced at the fact finding hearing was sufficient to establish both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of T.M.’s children.
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.