On Point blog, page 54 of 59
TPR – Interest-of-Justice Review
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tierra M.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate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.
Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2010AP321, Wis SCt rev granted 9/13/10
decision below: unpublished; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; prior post, here.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?
TPR- Ineffective Assistance – Change of Placement, Warnings; Disposition, Exercise of Discretion
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jesenia R.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate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,
TPR
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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sarah H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate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,
TPR – Evidence; Hearsay; Effective assistance
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti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.
TPR – Plea-Withdrawal
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,
TPR – Dispositional Orders, § 48.355(2)(b)1
Sheboygan Co. DHHS v. Tanya M.B. / William S.L., 2010 WI 55, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; for Tanya M.B.: Paul G. Bonneson; for William L.: Thomas K. Voss
CHIPS order entered under § 48.355(2)(b)1 “shall contain … specific services to be provided”; subsequent TPR based on lack of compliance with CHIPS conditions requires that the responsible agency made a reasonable effort to provide the ordered services.
TPR – Harmless Error
Rock Co. DHS v. Calvin M. M., No. 2010AP816, District IV, 6/24/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley
Admission of hearsay, describing an act of domestic violence was harmless:
¶7 There are two reasons why we conclude admitting this apparent hearsay evidence was harmless error. We first observe that one of the elements the County had to prove at trial was that Calvin had not met all of the conditions for return.
Brown Co. DHS v. Brenda B., No. 2010AP321, District III, 6/2/10; affirmed 2011 WI 6
court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky
TPR – Plea to Grounds
In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”
State v. Maceo W., No. 2009AP3098, District I, 6/2/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Maceo: Brian C. Findley
TPR – Assume-Responsibility Ground
Evidence sufficient to support verdict on § 48.451(6) ground of failure to assume parental responsibility for child born prematurely with significant medical needs:
¶30 The trial court accurately concluded that the evidence it outlined was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Maceo failed to assume parental responsibility of Jalacea.