On Point: 40. TPRs

Kathleen N. v. Brenda L. C., 2010AP2737, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brenda l.C.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Brenda isn’t entitled to a new TPR trial in the interests of justice, notwithstanding a line of inquiry that went to the respective financial capabilities of Brenda and her sister’s family (which sought the termination). “The evidence established that Brenda had last seen Samantha approximately six months prior to the hearing at a family gathering and had only spoken to Samantha at that event for a few minutes,

State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

¶18      “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,

Rock County HSD v. Jennifer B., 2011AP1524, District 4, 9/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

Evidence of the child’s diagnoses (ADHD; PTSD) was relevant to the main issue in contention, and was not unduly prejudicial, hence was admissible in the grounds phase of the TPR trial.

¶15      The question for the jury was whether there was a substantial likelihood that Jennifer would not “meet the child’s physical,

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP667, District 2, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Philip J, Brehm; case activity

Mother’s termination appeal, explicitly linking itself to outcome of father’s then-pending appeal, rendered moot by latter’s unsuccessful outcome:

¶1        Amber D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.  At the time that she wrote her brief, the father’s appeal was pending.

State v. Lakesha M., 2011AP1280, District 1, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lakesha M.: Carl W. Chessir; case activity

Termination of parental rights affirmed, court rejecting argument that procedural requirements of §§ 48.422(8) & 48.422(9)(a) (where petition not brought by agency, court “shall” order parent to provide certain information) violated:

¶5        The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did not file the petitions here.  

State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity

Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to exercise this authority sua sponte, 

Rock Co. HSD v. Timothy F., 2011AP1354, District 4, 8/25/11

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

The court rejects Timothy F.’s challenge to grant of summary judgment as to grounds for termination (abandonment, § 48.415(1)(a)2.): even if Timothy arguably had “good cause” for not visiting his child (Timothy had absconded from probation in fear of possible revocation),

Florence County Department of Human Services v. Jennifer B., 2011AP88, District 3, 8/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Removal from jury consideration of a ground for termination (CHIPS orders) without prior discussion between court and parties was error:

¶10      While we agree that a directed verdict is available in the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding, 

Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11

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

Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the parent provided the child throughout the child’s entire life,” Tammy W-G.

Dane Co. DHS v. Porfirio O. / Minerva L., 2011AP1247 et al., District 4, 8/11/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porfirio O.: Dennis Schertz; for Minvera L.: Steven Zaleski; case activity (Porfirio); case activity (Minerva)

The parents did not meet their burden of showing factual dispute as to whether their incarceration was the sole reason they were unable to meet conditions for return of the children under CHIPS orders,