On Point: 40. TPRs

Barron County DHHS v. C.K., 2015AP1378, 2015AP1379 & 2015AP1380, District 3, 4/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.K.’s argues she should get a new TPR trial because the circuit court erred by deciding an element of the grounds allegations without getting her personal waiver of the right to have the jury decide the element and by admitting evidence about drug activity at her home. The court of appeals rejects her claims.

Barron County DHHS v. M. B.-T., 2016AP1381/1382/1383, 3/31/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M. B.-T. was personally served with a TPR petition and summons and appeared as directed at the initial appearance on the petition. He didn’t enter a plea at the hearing because he told the circuit court he wanted have a lawyer appointed. He also agreed on the record to return for an adjourned initial appearance in about 3 weeks. He didn’t return, though, and no lawyer appeared for him, either, so the court granted the County’s motion for a default judgment. (¶¶2-5). The court of appeals rejects his challenges to the default judgment.

Kenosha County DHS v. C.D.K., 2015AP2179, 3/30/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.D.K. entered a plea to grounds for termination of her parental rights, and eventually, they were terminated. She claims on appeal that her trial counsel failed to advise her competently about the decision to admit grounds, and that she did not understand certain information, rendering her admission not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Jefferson County Human Serv. Dep’t v. V.B., 2016AP2468-2469, 3/16/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court found that V.B.’s children were in continuing need of protective services and thus there it had grounds to terminate her parental rights pursuant to §48.415(2).  On appeal,V.B. unsuccessfully challenged the evidence supporting the 3rd and 4th elements of continuing CHIPS–namely, that the county made reasonable efforts to provide court-ordered services to V.B. and that V.B. failed to meet the conditions for return of her children.

Racine County HSD v. R.E., 2016AP2039, 3/15/2017, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The record supported the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment on grounds of abandonment because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether R.E. had failed to visit or communicate with her child, S.E., for a period of three or more months, § 48.415(1)(a)2.

State v. D.T., 2016AP1488, 2/21/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

D.T. sought to withdraw her stipulation that the court had grounds to terminate her parental rights. She said the court made conflicting statements during its colloquy with her, such as  “it’s never too late to meet the conditions of return.” The court of appeals noted that the circuit court later clarified this remark by stressing that the focus of the subsequent dispositional hearing would be on the child’s best interests. 

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.B., 2016AP2422, District 4, 2/16/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

To terminate parental rights based on the “continuing CHIPS” ground, the jury had find that there was a substantial likelihood that JB would not meet the conditions for the safe return of her child within 9 months of the hearing. §48.415(2)(a).  The circuit court admitted a social worker’s expert testimony on this issue, apparently without following §907.02 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals. The court of appeals assumed error but declared it harmless.

State v. D.P.V., 2016AP2037, District 1, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court does not have the authority to stay an order terminating parental rights.

State v. P.T., 2016AP1460, 1/24/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.T. challenged a circuit court decision terminating his parental rights to his son on 2 grounds: (1) his stipulation to ground for termination was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary under Bangert, and (2) the postdisposition court should not have reviewed the transcript of the stipulation colloquy when deciding issue (1). He lost on both counts.

State v. L. H.-H., 2016AP917, 1/18/17, District 1 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

L.H.H. seeks to withdraw his plea to the single T.P.R. ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. He contends he did not understand that a plea would result in a finding that he was an unfit parent; the court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s finding that he did.