On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. Tamara B., 2014AP1714, District 1, 2/10/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Tamara requested a new dispositional hearing in the case that terminated her parental rights to her daughter Tamijah, saying there was new evidence that affected the advisability of the termination order. The circuit court properly determined that the evidence she presented wasn’t new.

State . Michelle M., 2014ap1539, District 1; 1/27/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this TPR case, a circuit court instructed a jury using the version of WIS JI-Children 346 that allows consideration of whether a mother has exposed her child to a hazardous living environment. The court should have given the prior version, which did not mention this consideration. According to the court of appeals, the jury could consider the point whether the instruction explicitly mentioned it or not.

St. Croix County DHHS v. Michael D. & Juanita A., 2014AP2431, District 3, 1/16/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 4/16/15, reversed, 2016 WI 35; case activity

The court of appeals holds that the notice requirements of §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) were not satisfied because the last order concerning out-of-home placement of Juanita’s child did not include the written notice of the applicable grounds for termination or the conditions for Matthew’s return. The County therefore failed to meet its burden of proof on the continuing CHIPS ground under § 48.415(2)(a)1. and the termination order is vacated and the TPR petition dismissed.

State v. Kiwana L., 2014AP2306, District 1, 1/13/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Kiwana L.’s substantive due process rights were not violated by the conditions set by the circuit court for return of her daughter Jasmine because those conditions were narrowly tailored to address her mental health issues; thus, the termination of her parental rights based on continuing CHIPS grounds under § 48.415(2) was proper.

Winnebago County DHS v. Ashley A.O., 2014AP2404, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court may not enter a summary judgment finding a parent unfit during the grounds phases of a TPR proceeding when that finding is based on an order denying the parent physical placement due to his (or her) incarceration.

Racine County HSD v . Latasia D.M., 2014AP1672/1673, 12/23/14, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The stand out in this multi-issue TPR case is whether the circuit court erred in denying Latasia’s permission to withdraw her jury demand. The court of appeals answered “no” because even though § 48.31(2) and §48.422(4) set forth the procedures for demanding a jury in a TPR case, the general civil procedure statute, § 805.01(3), governs the withdrawal of a jury demand. The latter statute requires the consent of all the parties, which Latasia did not have.

State v. Faizel K., 2014AP2035 & 2014AP2036, District 1, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2035; 2014AP2036

In this fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support the orders terminating Faizel’s parental rights to his sons Mohammed K. and Robeul K.

Dane County DHS v. Christina L., 2014AP1437, District 4, 11/20/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was a factual basis for Christina L.’s no contest plea to grounds for termination under § 48.415(10) because the child in this case, Aiden G-L., was “adjudged” CHIPS within three years of the involuntary termination of her parental rights to another child, Shaun L.

Portage County DHHS v. Shannon M., 2014AP1259-1260, 10/2/14, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds–abandonment and continuing CHIPS–to terminate Shannon’s parental rights to her  children.  But the circuit court became worried that the jury might have viewed Shannon’s conduct very differently if it had known that the court had improperly entered a dispositional order against her, so it granted Shannon JNOV and dismissed the petitions to terminate her rights.  The Department appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.

On review of an unpublished, one-judge court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether the trial court was clearly wrong in finding that Cecil had not failed to assume parental responsibility for his infant son?

Whether a parent’s expression of interest in his child equates to having a “substantial relationship” with the child?