On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. M.H., 2015AP711, District 1, 9/1/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that M.H. had not shown that her termination of parental rights proceeding should be reopened based on her “excusable neglect” in failing to appear at the dispositional hearing.

State v. T.P., 2015AP857, District 1, 8/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Recently enacted statutes allow a circuit court to presume that a parent in a TPR proceeding has waived the right to counsel if, after being ordered to appear in court, the parent fails to do so and the court finds that failure egregious and without a justifiable excuse. The circuit court’s application of those statutes in this case didn’t violate the parent’s due process rights.

State v. K.K., 2015AP986, 2015AP987, & 2015AP988, District 1, 8/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.K. argued that in deciding to terminate her parental rights, the circuit court failed adequately to consider the harm resulting from severing the legal relationship between her and her children given the substantial relationship she had with them. The court of appeals holds the court’s exercise of discretion was proper under Darryl T.-H. v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475.

Dane County DHS v. D.M., 2014AP2291, District 4, 7/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for arguing § 48.415(6) is unconstitutional as applied to D.M., as she fails to demonstrate that the County made it impossible for her to satisfy the conditions for return of her child, D.L.

Derrick P. v. Anita P., 2014AP2570 & 2014AP2571, District 4, 7/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Anita P. raised equal protection and due process challenges to § 48.415(4)(a) for the first time on appeal, and the court of appeals finds it’s not in the interest of justice to decide the challenges. We describe the issues in more detail below, since practitioners handling TPR cases arising out of placement denials in family court may want to consider raising them (in the trial court first, of course).

Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.

State v. Jodie A., 2015AP46 & 2015AP47, District 1, 7/7/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court that accepted Jodie A.’s admission as to grounds to terminate her parental rights failed to comply with two of the requirements for accepting an admission set forth in § 48.422(7)—namely, the court didn’t inquire about adoptive resources and didn’t require the submission of a report concerning potential financial exchanges. The errors were harmless, however.

State v. Kamille M., 2014AP2911, District 1, 6/26/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective at Kamille M.’s TPR grounds trial for failing to object to hearsay and to the state’s veiled reference to the best interests of the child during closing arguments.

Caroline P. v. Shawn H., 2014AP2004 & 2014AP2005, District 3, 6/24/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Even if the circuit court considered the statutory factors for termination of parental rights under § 48.426, the court lacked an evidentiary foundation in the record to make a determination as to whether termination was in the best interests of the child.

State v. Amelia A., 2015AP630 & 2015AP631, District 1, 6/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While the order extending the placement of Amelia’s children outside of her home did not specifically recite the conditions she needed to meet for the return of her children, the extension order specifically incorporated by reference the original CHIPS order, which did recite the conditions Amelia had to meet for return of the children and warned that failing to meet the conditions could result in termination of her parental rights. Thus, Amelia received the notice required under §§ 48.356(2) and 48.415(2)(a)1. and Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607.