On Point: 40. TPRs

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amanda H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H., 2011AP2599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. 

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,

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gilbert G.J.: Brian C. Findley; case activity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,

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity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;

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Corrine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Dalvin C.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity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,

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court of appeals decision(1-judge, not for publication); for Laura M.: Russell D. Bohach; case activity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.

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.

State v. Marquis O., 2011AP2642, District 1, 2/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquis O.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Grounds for terminating parental rights upheld, against argument that Bureau of Child Welfare didn’t make reasonable effort to provide services for Marquis O. to meet conditions for child’s return to him.

¶5        The termination of Marquis O.’s parental rights to Mariyana was based on the child’s having,

Chippewa County Dept. of Human Services v. James A., 2011AP2613, District 3, 2/7/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James A.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶18      James does not allege Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) implicates a First Amendment right.  Therefore, the threshold question is whether James’ conduct plainly falls within the statute’s proscriptions.  If it does, he is precluded from challenging the statute on vagueness grounds. 

Dane Co. DHS v. Kevin D., 2011AP2748, District 4, 2/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin: Steven Zaleski; case activity

Kevin’s failure to respond to the County requests for admission, § 804.11(2), led the trial court to deem those requests admitted, and then to grant summary judgment as to grounds based on the “deemed admissions.” The court of appeals rejects Kevin’s challenge to the admissions: he was given adequate notice as to the consequences for failure to respond,