On Point: 40. TPRs

Walworth County DH&HS v. Andrea O., 2010AP2938, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Andrea O.:  Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence supported jury verdict on abandonment as to grounds for terminating parental rights, as against claim of good cause (incarceration) for conceded failure to communicate with the child.

¶8        The record reflects that Andrea may have sent a letter to her caseworker,

State v. Abigail W., 2010AP2792, District 1, 2/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Abigail W.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

TPR – Condition of Return

CHIPS condition that parent “show that you can care for and supervise your child properly and that you understand [her] special needs” wasn’t an impossible condition but, rather, was narrowly tailored to meet compelling State interest in protecting child’s safety,

Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2011 WI 6, affirming unpublished decision; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶3   Given that a finding of parental unfitness does not necessarily result in an involuntary termination of parental rights, we determine that the circuit court was not obligated to inform Brenda that by pleading no contest she was waiving her constitutional right to parent. 

Portage Co. HHS v. Jesus S., 2010AP2698, District 4, 2/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesus S.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

For a no-contest plea to a TPR petition to be knowing and voluntary, the parent must be notified of the direct consequences of his or her plea, including an automatic finding of parental unfitness, ¶6, citing Oneida Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs.

State v. Troy J., 2010AP670, District 1, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Troy J.: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The judge presiding over disposition-phase of a TPR wasn’t required to disqualify himself where his daughter was employed to work in the guardian ad litem office of the local agency providing GAL work under contract, given that she had no involvement in that particular case.

Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here, because the alleged abandonment period began two weeks before the end of the CHIPS placement order,

Marathon County Dept. of Social Services v. Lorie O., 2010AP2351, District 3, 12/21/10

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

Summary judgment may be granted as to grounds for TPR, Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶6; but where the CHIPS order, on which alleged unfitness is premised, fails to set forth conditions for regaining contact with the child,

State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir

TPR – Default as Sanction

Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,

State v. Lorraine J. / Johnny J., 2010AP137, et al,District 1, 12/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.:  Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau

TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation

A termination order severs all parental rights, including visitation under § 48.43, ¶¶31-37.

TPR – Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation

Grant of a post-disposition motion,

Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P. S, 2010AP573, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Determination of the “best interests of the child” at TPR disposition includes consideration of various factors, including the “wishes of the child.” The TPR court need not hear directly from the child, but may instead take evidence of the child’s wishes from other sources.

Court discusses evidentiary issues that appear to be too inconsequential,