On Point blog, page 3 of 3
TPR – Evidence – Child’s Mental Health Problems; Prior Voluntary Termination – Harmless Error
Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity
Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.
¶15 The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,
TPR – Sufficiency of Evidence; Oral Instructions: Timing; Counsel – Presence, Return of Verdict
Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the parent provided the child throughout the child’s entire life,” Tammy W-G.
TPR – Default as Sanction; Formal Advice as to Rights – Harmless Error
State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir
TPR – Default as Sanction
Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,
TPR – Harmless Error
Rock Co. DHS v. Calvin M. M., No. 2010AP816, District IV, 6/24/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley
Admission of hearsay, describing an act of domestic violence was harmless:
¶7 There are two reasons why we conclude admitting this apparent hearsay evidence was harmless error. We first observe that one of the elements the County had to prove at trial was that Calvin had not met all of the conditions for return.
TPR – Withdrawal of Element (Parental Unfitness) from Jury Consideration Amounted to Denial of Jury Trial
Manitowoc County HSD v. Allen J., 2008 WI App 137
Issue/Holding:
¶1 Allen J. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Brandon [1] and Stephanie J. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial because the court, rather than the jury, answered one of the verdict questions on an element of parental unfitness. Allen’s counsel had stipulated that the element was satisfied,