On Point blog, page 52 of 59
TPR Grounds: Abandonment
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,
TPR – Partial Summary Judgment
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity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,
TPR – Default as Sanction; Formal Advice as to Rights – Harmless Error
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir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,
TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation, Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau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,
TPR – Disposition – “Wishes of the Child”
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se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,
TPR – Knowing Admission to Grounds, Ineffective Assistance
State v. Kenneth E., 2010AP1520, District 1, 12/7/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kenneth E.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
(The Court’s Case Access site has posted Kenneth E.’s principal and reply briefs. This is atypical; the court’s normal practice is not to post briefs, because of the confidentiality that attends TPRs. Though seemingly not barred by statute or rule, links to the briefs won’t be provided here in deference to the court’s past practice,
TPR – Exercise of Discretion
State v. LaDonna E., 2010AP1733, District 1, 12/7/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaDonna E.: Jane S. Earle
Termination of parental rights upheld. Mother (LaDonna E.), after defaulting on grounds phase, challenged termination on basis that child’s aunt, who had custody and wanted to adopt child, should be appointed guardian instead.
¶9 The circuit court noted that “Kenny will be adopted.” See Wis.
TPR – Right to Counsel – Violation, Structural Error
State v. Darrell K., 2010AP1910, District 1, 10/19/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Darrell K.: Jereny C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee
Darrell’s right to counsel was violated when the trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw then found Darrell in default as to grounds while he was unrepresented. State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, followed.
¶10 The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing Shirley’s attorney and in finding Shirley in default when she was unrepresented throughout the hearings.
TPR – Underlying CHIPS Order: Implied “Specific Services”
Dane Co. DHS v. Samuel W., 2009AP2606 , District 4, 10/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Samuel W.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Under Sheboygan County DHHS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55, although a CHIPS dispositional order must set forth the “specific services” to be provided, it may do so implicitly. Applying that holding here, the court of appeals concludes that the conditions for return in the CHIPS order were not so “generic”
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds (Abandonment)
Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm
The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment.
¶7 … First, Steven V. explained that its discussion of the use of summary judgment procedure on grounds proven by documentary evidence versus those proven by non-documentary evidence was not “mean[t] to imply that the general categorization of statutory grounds in this and the preceding paragraph represent a definitive statement about the propriety of summary judgment in any particular case.” Id.