State v. Queentesta H., 2014AP761, District 1, 7/22/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity The circuit court did not err in answering the first question of the special verdict forms submitted to the jury in Queentesta’s TPR trial because the jury could not have reached any other conclusion regarding those questions. The first question of… Read more
5. Directed verdict on element
Dane County DHS v. John L.-B., 2013AP462, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity This decision rejects Dane County’s appeal from the dismissal of a TPR petition after a jury verdict in favor of the parent. Here’s the factual background: Dane County filed a TPR petition against John L.-B. in… Read more
Chester B. v. Larry D., 2011AP926, District 2, 11/2/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Entry of default against parent imprisoned out of state violated his right to due process under the circumstances. On receipt of the petition and summons, Larry contacted the petitioner’s attorney and said… Read more
State v. Cedrick M., 2010AP3011, District 1, 8/30/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cedrick M.: John J. Grau; case activity Directed verdict as to grounds for termination held permissible, citing Door Cnty. DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), ¶¶10-11. The trial court was empowered to… Read more
Florence County Department of Human Services v. Jennifer B., 2011AP88, District 3, 8/19/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Removal from jury consideration of a ground for termination (CHIPS orders) without prior discussion between court and parties was error: ¶10 While… Read more
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary. Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe… Read more
