On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. S.M.T., 2018AP2113, 2018AP2114, & 2018AP2115, District 1, 1/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects S.M.T.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her parental rights based on the children’s continuing need of protective services and S.M.T.’s failure to assume parental responsibility.

State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?

State v. K.L., 2018AP2180-2183, 1/23/19, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

After the circuit court terminated K.L.’s parental rights to 4 of his kids, he appealed arguing that the finding that he failed to assume parental responsibility for his kids was clearly erroneous. The circuit court focused only on the period after the kids were removed from home not on his actions throughout their lives. The court of appeals disagreed:

Walworth County D.H.S&S v. A.J.S., 2018AP1562, 1/2/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

On Point doesn’t have access to TPR briefs. But judging from the court of appeals opinion, A.J.S. understood that if he voluntarily agreed to terminate his parental rights to his daughter under §48.41, then his mother would become her adoptive parent. Shortly before the hearing A.J.S. was surprised to learn that this outcome was not guaranteed. And, indeed, it did not come to pass.

State v. J.A., 2018AP1257, District 1, 12/4/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.A.’s parental rights were terminated on the ground he failed to assume parental responsibility. He argues the CHIPS order itself created a substantial parental relationship, thereby precluding the state from using that ground to terminate his rights. Alternatively, he argues the CHIPS order made it impossible for him to assume parental responsibility. Neither argument succeeds.

State v. R.H., 2018AP1827, District 1, 12/4/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The standard of review doomed this appeal, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that R.H. failed to assume parental responsibility during the grounds phase of a TPR.

Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2.  The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate.

Adams County DHS v. S.D., 2018AP466, District 4, 11/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Rejecting S.D.’s claims that she had raised genuine issues of material fact supporting a defense, the court of appeals affirms the summary judgment against S.D. on the grounds of the three-month abandonment provision in § 48.415(1)(a)2.

State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here.

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).