On Point: 40. TPRs

Veronica K. v. Michael K., 2012AP197, District 1, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Michael K., incarcerated at the time of this TPR trial, appeared by audio-video hookup. He argues that his due process right to meaningful participation, State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266, ¶2, 288 Wis. 2d 504, 708 N.W.2d 698, in light of his numerous contemporaneous complaints he couldn’t hear the proceedings. 

State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence:

¶16      Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination proceedings is inherent in Shirley E.

Brown County Department of Human Services v. David D., 2012AP722, District 3, 95/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Parent’s appearance by telephone held to satisfy right to “meaningful participation”:

¶10      “A parent’s rights to his or her children are substantial and are protected by due process.”  Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16,

Dunn County Human Services v. Eric R., 2011AP2416, District 3, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

That counsel for the parent on a termination petition had, while serving as a family court commissioner 19 months earlier, entered a child support order against the parent, did not alone establish a conflict of interest.  Supreme Court Rule 20:1.12(a) (“a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge”),

State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶11      Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s best interest.  Effectually, Robert argues that the trial court did not properly consider the factors set forth in Wis.

State v. Yvette A., 2012AP548, District 1, 8/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

Parent’s failure to appear at grounds phase of TPR trial, because she was locked in a mental health unit, supported default judgment, where parent had documented history of checking herself into hospitals despite actual need for psychiatric treatment.

¶13      Because entry of default is a particularly harsh sanction,

Jackson Co. DHS v. Robert H., 2011AP2783, District 4, 7/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Both federal and state Indian Child Welfare Acts require that termination of parental rights to an Indian child be supported by testimony of a qualified expert witness “that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child,” 25 U.S.C.

State v. Elbert H., 2012AP446 / State v. Stacee P., 2012AP169, District 1, 6/12/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); for Elbert H.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; for Stacee P.: Gregory Bates; case activity

The relevant agency’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to provide court-ordered services encompasses post-petition activity:

¶8        Stacee P.’s contention that the proof of “reasonable effort” are limited to activities antedating the petition is belied by the statute,

Michael B. v. Marcy M., 2011AP2846, District 2, 5/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marcy M.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

By responding (inadequately) to a TPR motion for summary judgment on grounds with a letter rather than evidence such as an affidavit, counsel provided ineffective assistance.

¶10      We disagree that counsel’s performance was “not ineffective.”  In the face of summary judgment that would deprive Marcy of a jury determination on her failure to assume parental responsibility,

Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H, 2011AP2599, District 3, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott H.: Brian C. Findley; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H., 2011AP2599 

Notwithstanding trial counsel’s concession of no strategic reason for allowing the jury to view documents reciting Scott’s “history of violent behavior,”