On Point: 40. TPRs

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beverly H.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wesley M.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer F.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry W.: Jane S. Earle; case activity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,

Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T., 2011 WI 30, on certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

TPR – Grounds, § 48.415(6) – “Substantial Parental Relationship”

¶22  The language of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6), specifically the underscored language, indicates that under § 48.415(6), a fact-finder must look to the totality-of-the-circumstances to determine if a parent has assumed parental responsibility. 

Winnebago County DHHS v. Thomas C. W., 2010AP847, District 2, 3/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas C.W.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

Though trial counsel was ineffective with respect to a single discrete oversight – failure to lodge a meritorious motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as to one of the 3 grounds for termination – the court discerns no basis to doubt either of the remaining 2 grounds,

Winnebago County DHS v. Jenny L. G.-J., 2009AP2956, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jenny L. G.-J.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity

The privilege attaching to interactions under direction of a family therapist, § 905.04(1)(b), doesn’t apply to information obtained by “dispositional staff” providing services under § 48.069.

¶11      Wisconsin Stat. § 48.069(1) defines a dispositional staffer as a member of “[t]he staff of the department [of children and families],

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,