On Point: 40. TPRs

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.

Sauk County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP898 & 2015AP899, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.C.’s trial lawyer was not ineffective for failing to take steps to exclude evidence about the termination of A.C.’s rights to a child in a prior case and about her parenting conduct toward that child and another child.

X.J. v. G.G., 2015AP1549, District 3, 10/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under § 48.42(1), an adoptive parent may join the biological parent in a petition to terminate the parental rights of the other biological parent, and because joining the petition makes the adoptive parent a party, the adoptive parent is not subject to sequestration as a witness.

La Crosse County HSD v. C.J.T., 2015AP252, District 4, 10/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The fact that the County’s attorney handling this TPR proceeding retained the GAL in the case to represent the her in an unrelated personal injury matter didn’t create a conflict of interest that required a new trial.

State v. C.S., 2015AP1345, 10/13/15, District 1 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals here carefully recites, and then affirms, circuit court findings that the termination of C.S.’s parental rights were in the best interests of her child, M.G. Its analysis, however, displays little regard for the standard of review.

State v. L.M.-N., 2014AP2405 & 2014AP2406, District 1/4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly entered a default judgment in L.M.-N.’s termination of parental rights proceeding based on her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition and, when she did finally appear, by refusing to testify.

A.N. v. F.S., 2015AP1405 & 2015AP1406, District 3, 10/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court handling a TPR case is not required to make an explicit finding that a parent is unfit before proceeding to the dispositional phase because a finding of unfitness automatically follows from a finding there are grounds to terminate the parent’s rights.

State v. E.P., 2015AP1298-1300, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds to terminate E.P.’s parental rights because his kids were in continuing need of protective services. The court of appeals rejected E.P.’s arguments that § 48.415(2)’s “6 months or longer” period (i.e. the time a child has been placed outside the home per a CHIPS order) begins to run only after he exhausted his appellate rights. The court also declined to order a new trial in the interests of justice.

State v. A.W., 2015AP1480-1481, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Focusing on  §48.426(3)(c), one of the “best interests of the children” criteria, the court of appeals here affirmed the circuit court’s finding that the termination of AW’s parental rights would not significantly harm her children. Evidence that the S.B., the likely adoptive parent, would allow A.W. to continue to see her children supported the circuit court’s decision on this point.

State v. T.N., 2014AP2407 & 2014AP2408, District 4, 9/10/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly entered a default judgment against T.N. in his TPR proceeding when, despite the court’s warnings and admonitions, T.N. failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance.