Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

TPR

Ozaukee Co. HSD v. Sarah H., 2010AP416, District 2, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sarah H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

A CHIPS dispositional order placing a child with a local department and requiring that services be provided to child and family satisfies Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55:

¶5        … What this comes down to is an argument that the dispositional order must contain a magical phrase—“supervision, services and case management” and that the order specifically be directed, in the same breath, with a named social service department. We reject that argument. What the supreme court pointedly held was that “specific services” need not be listed in the order—all that is needed is a command by the trial court that the named social services department do services, do supervise the parent and do manage the parent and that the parent knows and the department knows that this is what needs to be done. The order in this case did just that. It orders services to be provided by the department and it orders the Department to take “responsibility” for the care of the parent-child relationship. We read item 2 and item 5 together because that is the commonsense reading of the order. After doing so, we conclude that this case is governed by Tanya M.B. and affirm.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment