On Point: 40. TPRs

Sheboygan Co. DHHS v. Tanya M.B. / William S.L., 2010 WI 55, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; for Tanya M.B.: Paul G. Bonneson; for William L.: Thomas K. Voss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.

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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley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.

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,”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Maceo: Brian C. Findley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.

State v. Chester C., 2009AP2824, District I, 5/4/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Chester C.: Dianne M. Erickson

TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
Failure to demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Strickland dooms this ineffective-assistance claim that trial counsel failed to object to various hearsay statements:

¶7     Other than complaining that his trial lawyer did not object to the hearsay we have recounted,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski

IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,

court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Grounds

We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights. 

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

TPR
Plea to grounds upheld, in light of trial court credibility determinations at post-termination evidentiary hearing, against claim Benny didn’t understand State’s burden of proof, 2-stage nature of TPR, or finding of unfitness as necessary consequence of plea.

Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.

Holding:

¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.

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

TPR – Voluntariness of Plea

¶24      Because Wisconsin statutory law does not permit a court to terminate parental rights upon a finding of unfitness without completing the dispositional phase, we see no rationale for requiring a court to inform a parent that a finding of unfitness results in the automatic loss of the constitutional right to parent.