On Point blog, page 47 of 59
TPR – Grounds: “Reasonable Effort” Obligation of Responsible Agency, § 48.415(2)(a)2b
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,
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marcy M.: Jane S. Earle; case activity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,
TPR – IAC – Lack of Prejudice
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott H.: Brian C. Findley; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H., 2011AP2599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,”
TPR – Severance; IAC – Lack of Prejudice; Grounds: Failure to Assume Parental Responsibility – Constitutionality
Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H, 2011AP2600, District 3, 5/15/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amanda H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H., 2011AP2599
TPR – Severance
On joint trial for termination of parental rights, Scott’s disruptive conduct didn’t necessitate grant of severance motion by Amanda.
Dane Co. DHS v. Mable K., 2011AP825, petition for review granted, 5/3/12
on review of summary order of court of appeals; for Mable K.: Brian C. Findley; case activity
TPR – Final Order – Appellate Standing
Issues (from Petition for Review):
I. When a trial court grants partial relief on remand in a Termination of Parental Rights appeal, is further appeal precluded by the ordinary rules of civil procedure?
II. Where the trial court determines that it denied the right to counsel during a TPR trial,
TPR – Dispositional Hearing Evidence
Jessica L. G. v. Gilbert G. J., III, 2011AP3000, District 2, 5/2/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gilbert G.J.: Brian C. Findley; case activity
Jessica sought termination of Gilbert’s parental rights to their child. They divorced shortly after the child was born in 1997, and Gilbert had had contact with the child only once since. Jessica remarried; her new husband wanted to adopt the child,
TPR – Best Interests Determination
State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity
The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:
¶30 Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance. She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she: (1) is still on probation;
TPR – Closing Argument, GAL – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Corrine J., 2011AP1916 / State v. Dalvin C., Sr., 2011AP1882, District 1, 3/27/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Corrine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Dalvin C.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity
Trial counsel’s failure to object to the guardian ad litem’s closing argument wasn’t prejudicial, given the strength of the case for terminating parental rights. (The argument, merits of which the court doesn’t reach,
TPR – Default; TPR – Right to Present Evidence
State v. Laura M., 2011AP2828, District 1, 3/27/12
court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Laura M.: Russell D. Bohach; case activity
The trial court properly exercised discretion in finding Laura M. in default when she failed to appear for trial on TPR grounds. A father of one of her children, Padrein K., called counsel to report that he had been stabbed and that Laura M.
TPR – Default Judgment as to Grounds – Sufficiency of Evidence; § 48.415(6) – Constitutional Challenge, Vagueness
Dane Co. DHS v. Sophia S., 2011AP2639, District 4, 2/23/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity
Although the parent isn’t required to object to the sufficiency of evidence adduced in support of a default judgment on grounds for termination (the court rejecting the County’s argument on this point), there was a sufficient factual basis for the default.