Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Meaningful participation

TPR – Telephonic Appearance

Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence. ¶16      Addressing first the requirements… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published) Issue/Holding: A deported father’s participation in the TPR proceeding by a webcam system was “meaningful,” given that he could see and hear witnesses, be seen by the court, and communicate privately with counsel and with aid of an interpreter, ¶¶10-19. State v… 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. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue/Holding: ¶2        Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned  in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation. Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the… Read More

{ 0 comments }