On Point: 40. TPRs

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquis O.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James A.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin: Steven Zaleski; case activity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,

Heather T. C. v. Donald M. H., 2010AP467, District 2, 2/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Failure to object at trial waived appellate challenge to jury instructions and verdict form that combined two separate periods of abandonment as grounds for termination.

 ¶6        Failure to object to proposed jury instructions or verdicts at the instruction and verdict conference constitutes waiver of any error in the instructions or verdicts.  

Barron County v. Tara H., 2012AP2390, District 3, 1/15/13

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

TPR — Exercise of discretion in determining disposition

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to consider one of the six factors under § 48.426(3)–specifically, whether the child had a substantial relationship with Tara or other family members, and whether it would be harmful to sever those relationships;

Racine County HSD v. Roseannah M. H., 2011AP1776, District 2, 1/11/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roseannah: Patrick Flanagan; case activity

On this TPR appeal by the County, the court of appeals upholds an order granting Roseannah’s motion to withdraw her admission to grounds. Such an admission must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, per colloquy governed by § 48.422(7) and due process, ¶5,

Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity

¶7        Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons.  First, he appeared by telephone, not videoconference, and he did not waive his right to appear by videoconference.  Second, he could not hear what was being said during trial. 

Dane Co. DHS v. Lee H., 2011AP1138, District 4, 12/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lee H.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

The trial court did not err in directing answers to special verdict questions with respect to two elements of grounds for terminating parental rights (existence of order containing TPR notice placing the child outside the parent’s home; failure to visit or communicate with child 3 months or longer).

Dawn H. v. Pah-Nasa B., 2011AP1198, District 3, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Pah-Nasa B.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Given the proof of lack of parental responsibility as a ground for terminating Pah-Nasa’s rights, counsel’s failure to object to testimony about a fight between Pah-Nasa and his mother wasn’t prejudicial.

¶14      We conclude Pah-Nasa has failed to prove prejudice,

Dane Co. DHS v. Nikita B., 2011AP2054, District 2, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nikita B.: Suzanne l. Hagopian, Eileen Huie; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain termination of parental rights, premised on substantial likelihood parent wouldn’t meet conditions for return of child placed in foster care:

¶8        This court’s review of a jury’s verdict is narrow.  Morden v.