On Point: 40. TPRs

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.

Ozaukee County DHS v. J.R. and S.R., 2804-2809, 6/3/15, District 2 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket

Sec. 48.21(7) allows the circuit court to dismiss or informally dispose of a CHIPS petition, if doing so would be in the best interests of the child and the public. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of several CHIPS petitions in this case because the children at issue were not in custody. The statute, said the court of appeals, applies only to children who are in custody.

State v. Mary G., 2015AP55, 2015AP56, & 2015AP57, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase of the trial on a TPR petition, the circuit court properly ordered Mary G. to provide the State with notes from her mental health treatment provider and appropriately considered evidence regarding Mary’s failure to manage her medications.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point):

Do §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) require the final CHIPS order filed before a TPR petition warn the parent about grounds for termination and the conditions for return or the child, or is it sufficient that the parent was given “adequate notice” of the grounds for termination and conditions of return during the pendency of the CHIPS proceeding?

State v. Jasmine W., 2014AP2960 & 2014AP2961, District 1, 3/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2960; 2014AP2961

The circuit court applied the proper standard of law to the relevant fact when it declined to place Jasmine’s children with their grandmother, found no substantial relationship between the children and their grandmother, and concluded that it would not cause harm to sever the legal ties between the children and their grandmother.

Dane County DHS v. Hershula B., 2014AP2076, 2/26/15, District 4  (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket

Hershula appealed an order terminating her parental rights. She argued that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the abandonment issue because she presented evidence that she had communicated indirectly with her child. The court of appeals held that the phrase “communicate with the child” requires that the child share in the action of communicating with the parent. Slip op. ¶22. Indirect communications don’t count.