On Point: 40. TPRs

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Samuel W.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate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”

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm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.

Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence.

¶16      Addressing first the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 48.422(7)(a),  the plain import of the requirement that the court “[a]ddress the parties present” is that the court engage in an on-the-record discussion,

Jeffrey J. v. David D., 2010AP1717, District 3, 9/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for David D.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

Parent’s right to confrontation was satisfied by in-chambers discussion between judge and children during which they spoke in favor of termination, where their father killed their mother and grandparents, and the judge reasonably determined that they would suffer emotional harm if required to submit to face to face confrontation.

Dane Co. DHS v. Tierra M., 2010AP1648, District 4, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tierra M.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects the idea that Tierra M.’s termination of parental rights wasn’t “fully tried” under the theory that the subsequently decided Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55 requires departmental services relevant to implied as well as explicitly ordered conditions for the children’s return.

decision below: unpublished; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; prior post, here.

Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):

Did the trial court correctly exercise its discretion in denying a parent’s motion to withdraw a no contest plea that grounds existed for termination of parental rights without an evidentiary hearing?

State v. Jesenia R., 2009AP2906, District 1, 8/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

No prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure to object to violation of the change-of-placement notice requirement in § 48.357. ¶¶15-16.

The background is a bit fact-intensive. Roughly: The child (Elizabeth) had been placed with a foster family, who moved to Idaho and took Elizabeth with them,

Ozaukee Co. HSD v. Sarah H., 2010AP416, District 2, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sarah H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

A CHIPS dispositional order placing a child with a local department and requiring that services be provided to child and family satisfies Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55:

¶5        … What this comes down to is an argument that the dispositional order must contain a magical phrase—“supervision,

Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti

TPR – Evidence

Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.

Dane Co. DHS v. Brittany W., No. 2009AP2778, District IV, 7/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not fo publication); for Brittany W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects Brittany’s claim she didn’t understand the consequence of her no-contest plea (that she would be deemed unfit, and that disposition would turn on the child’s best interests), given the trial judge’s finding that the denial of such knowledge wasn’t credible,