On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. Ebony D., 2013AP619, 2013AP620, & 2013AP621, District 1, 6/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP619; 2013AP620; 2013AP621

The continuing need for protection and services grounds for termination of parental rights, § 48.415(2), is not unconstitutional as applied to Ebony D. because the evidence shows she was able to meet the continuing-CHIPS order’s conditions for return despite her claim that her cognitive limitations made it impossible for her to fulfill the conditions.

Patrick J.T. v. Shelly S., 2013AP778 and 2013AP779, District 4, 6/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP778; 2013AP779

Under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard for determining whether a parent has assumed parental responsibility, Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T., 2011 WI 30, ¶22, 333 Wis. 2d 273, 797 N.W.2d 854, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Shelly S.

Jenna L.C. v. Dustin J.K.V., 2012AP2696, District 2, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Dustin’s claim that his attorney was ineffective at the fact-finding hearing on a TPR petition alleging he had failed to assume parental responsibility for his daughter, Breyanna.

Trial counsel did not object to certain evidence about conduct Dustin allegedly engaged in shortly before he learned his girlfriend was pregnant with Breyanna.

Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83; case activity

David G.’s parental rights were terminated in a proceeding commenced by the child’s mother. He filed a timely notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief, but his appointed appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal before the deadline. (¶3). That deadline cannot be extended because the legislature has decreed that the time for filing an appeal in a TPR case may not be enlarged when the petition was filed by someone other than “a representative of the public.”

State v. Roy W., 2013AP413, District 1, 5/29/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Roy W.’s arguments that “virtually every” factor under § 48.426(3) weighed in his favor and that the only ground for terminating his parental rights was his sixteen month prison sentence. (¶1). Based on a lengthy review of the record and the circuit court’s reasoning for terminating Roy’s parental rights (¶¶2-9,

Langlade County DSS v. Michael P., 2013AP385, 2013AP386, & 2013AP387, District 3, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP385; 2013AP386; 2013AP387

Sufficiency of evidence

Based on the entire record of the fact-finding hearing, the court of appeals concludes there was sufficient evidence that Michael P. failed to assume parental responsibility, despite his testimony tending to show he did assume responsibility:

¶26      …[I]t is clear that Michael did not have a “substantial parental relationship” with his children over the course of their lives. 

State v. Marquese H., 2013AP565, 2013AP566, & 2013AP567, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP565; 2013AP566; 2013AP567

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Marquese H.’s parental rights because it considered the factors under § 48.426(1). The court rejects Marquese’s specific claim that the circuit court erred because, under § 48.426(1)(c) and Darryl T.-H.

Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background:

Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in January 2012, alleging failure to assume parental responsibility and six months of abandonment.

Ronald J.R. v. Alexis L.A., 2013 WI App 79; case activity

This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment decision finding grounds to terminate Alexis L.A.’s parental rights.  The father, Ronald J.R., sought termination on two grounds and won summary judgment on the first one.  The parties then stipulated that Ronald would withdraw the second ground, if Alexis would agree not to appeal the partial summary judgment on the first ground.

Florence County DHS v. Jennifer B., 2012AP2314, 2012AP2315, and 2012AP2316, District 3, 4/9/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2012AP2314; 2012AP2315; 2012AP2316 

Jennifer’s consent to terminate her parental rights to her older children was knowing and voluntary despite the fact she received “advice” from numerous people that consenting to termination for those children might help her get back her youngest child who was in foster care in Michigan.