On Point: 40. TPRs

State v. Francine T., 2010AP3140 / State v. Emilano M., 2010AP2596, District 1, 8/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Francine T.: Theresa J. Schmieder; for Emilano M.: Brian C. Findley; case activity

¶17      Francine and Emiliano argue that the trial court lacked competence [5] to enter the June 2, 2010 TPR order because it did not have competence to enter 
the January 31,

Shelly J. v. Leslie W., 2011AP753, District 4, 7/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shelly J.:  Amy J. Lamerand Zott; case activity

Shelly’s motion to reopen her TPR judgment, 7 years after she successfully petitioned for voluntary termination, was untimely under the 1-year deadline imposed by § 806.07(1)(a) and (c), nor did she show “extraordinary circumstances” under subs. (h). As to her claim that the judgment was void under subs.

D’Ann K. v. Benjamin J. G., 2010AP1655, District 4, 7/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Benjamin J.G.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

With failure to assume parental responsibility as the ground for termination, Benjamin G. “argues that the court did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances test established in Tammy W-G. because it failed to consider Benjamin’s testimony that D’Ann [the guardian] failed to return his phone calls.”

Waukesha County DH&HS v. Jennifer L. H., 2010AP2990, District 2, 7/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer L.H.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to prove Jennifer’s failure to assume parental responsibility as TPR ground, notwithstanding that she lived with the child and helped raise him from birth until he was removed from her home: “although Jennifer did live with Kurt for most of his life,

Florence County Dept. of Human Services v. Edward S., Jr., 2011AP385, District 3, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Edward S.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

Counsel’s stipulation without the parent’s on-record assent to the first element of TPR grounds (child placed outside home at least 6 months under CHIPS order) didn’t deprive parent of his right to jury trial. Walworth County DHHS v.

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J. W., 2010AP2248, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity

By his overweening involvement in the trial process, evincing his prejudgment of the case and asking “countless questions of the witnesses” – to an extent that the GAL objected that “the judge was abusing his function and was not being fair to Roberta -,

State v. Beverly H., 2011AP536, District 1, 6/21/11

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

The trial court didn’t err in denying the parent’s request for an adjournment of dispositional hearing, following jury verdict finding grounds to terminate. The court of appeals rejects the argument that § 48.31(7)(a) controls the issue.

¶2        This Court disagrees with Beverly H.’s arguments on appeal. 

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Wesley M., No. 2010AP2946, District 2, 6/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶7        A parent is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings, and the applicable standards are those which apply in criminal cases.  See A.S. v. State, 168 Wis.

Dane Co. DHS v. Jennifer F., 2011AP530, District 4, 6/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer F.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court erred in not taking testimony in support of no-contest pleas to the TPR petition as required by § 48.422(3) (see Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, ¶56, 233 Wis.

State v. Henry W., 2011AP693, District 1, 6/7/11

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

Testimony of a “bonding expert” as to how the child’s view of her father would make it difficult for him to meet conditions of return, was relevant and admissible in the grounds phase, ¶¶5-7, 10.

Trial court’s refusal to grant adjournment of dispositional phase so that father could secure his own bonding expert,