≡ Menu

E. Procedure

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55 Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 3: The circuit court did not order a default under Wis. Stat. § 806.02(5). Shirley E. had “appeared” at the hearing by her attorney. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶17, 246 Wis.  2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768.The circuit court found… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Kenosha Co. DHS v. Jodi W. 2006 WI 93, reversing summary order Issue/Holding: The circuit court must undertake a colloquy with the parent tracking § 48.422(7); the parent must know the rights being waived; and on a challenge to the plea the parent must make a prima facie showing that the colloquy was defective and… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

TPR – Substitution of Judge

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 Issue/Holding: ¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS