On Point blog, page 56 of 59
TPR – No Contest Plea, Withdrawal of – Prima Facie Showing re: Grounds and Potential Disposition
Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159
Grounds
Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a):
¶16 Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to the disposition and then will either terminate the parent’s rights or dismiss the petition if the evidence does not warrant termination.
TPR — Prior TPR as Grounds, Based on Default Judgment
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order was based on her default for failing to personally appear at the fact-finding hearing.
Holding:
¶27 We agree with the court of appeals that to require more evidence than a prior involuntary termination order to satisfy Wis.
TPR — Partial Summary Judgment (as to Fact-Finding Hearing) – Basis and Proof – Prior TPR, Grounds for
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order did not state the explicit § 48.415 ground relied on.
Holding:
¶2 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10)(b) does not require proof of which § 48.415 ground was relied upon for a prior termination of parental rights because the phrase,
TPR – Sufficiency of Warnings, Prior CHIPS Proceeding
Dane co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4 court of appeals, 3/29/07 (published)
Issue/Holding:
¶19 Dyanne acknowledges that the CHIPS order makes reference to “warnings” and contains the statutory language defining the possible grounds for termination. She also does not dispute that the order contains the conditions that were necessary for Artavia’s return. Dyanne’s argument is limited to an assertion that the order fails to sufficiently connect the warning language to the statutory language.
Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits–Failure to Comply with § 48.427(1) 10-day Limit for Entering Dispositional Order
Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, District 4, 3/29/07 (published)
Competency of TPR Court – Statutory Time Limits, Generally
Issue/Holding:1: Generally, compliance with a statutory TPR time limit is mandatory, such that non-compliance results in lost circuit court competency absent an applicable exception, ¶5, citing Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, ¶63.
Issue/Holding:2: The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of lost judicial competency for lapse of a time limit without obtaining a proper extension under § 48.315,
Parental Responsibility / Fitness, § 48.415(6) – Relevance of Father’s Conduct After Discovery He Is Child’s Father
State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77, reversing a summary order remanding the case to the court of appeals.
Issue/Holding:
¶5 For the reasons set forth, we hold that in determining whether a party seeking termination of parental rights has proven by clear and convincing evidence that a biological father has failed to assume parental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6), a circuit court must consider the biological father’s efforts undertaken after he discovers that he is the father but before the circuit court adjudicates the grounds of the termination proceeding.
Disposition – Discretion Properly Exercised
Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published)
Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in terminating rights:
¶25 Teodoro finally argues that at the dispositional stage, the trial court erroneously determined that termination of his parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. This determination is committed to the circuit court’s discretion, and will not be overturned unless that discretion is erroneously exercised.
Conditions – Possibility of Meeting: Deported Parent
Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published)
Issue/Holding: Conditions imposed for non-termination of a deported parent’s children weren’t impossible, notwithstanding parent’s inability to return to country:
¶23 But as the circuit court noted, “Mexico is not prison” and Teodoro remained free to work on and meet many of the conditions of return. As an example, the first condition,
TPR – Right to Appearance by Counsel, Notwithstanding Parent’s Default in Failing to Personally Appear at Fact-Finding Phase
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may deny a parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding the statutory right to counsel when the parent has appeared in the proceeding but failed to personally attend a hearing in contravention of a court order and is found in default as a sanction for disobeying the court order.” (¶2)
Holding:
¶41 We do not accept the State’s position for three reasons.
TPR – Right to Counsel, Waiver
State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
¶57 The State also argues that Shirley E., a parent over 18 years of age, has waived her right to counsel by not appearing personally. We can quickly dismiss this argument. Wisconsin Stat. § 48.23(2) explicitly requires that any waiver of counsel must be knowing and voluntary. As we determined in M.W.