Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Post-disposition evidence about a change in child’s placement didn’t merit new disposition hearing

State v. R.G., 2017AP1078, District 1, 11/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After R.G.’s parental rights were terminated the child was removed from the care of D.L., the foster parent at the time of the TPR dispositional hearing and prospective adoptive parent, because D.L. was abusing the child. (¶¶5-6). A new disposition hearing isn’t merited because this new evidence wasn’t sufficient to “affect[] the advisability of the court’s original adjudication” under § 48.46(1) and Schroud v. Milw. Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 53 Wis. 2d 650, 654, 193 N.W.2d 671 (1972). (¶¶10-15).

¶2     The TPR disposition adjudication statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(a) requires a court to determine whether a child in a TPR proceeding is adoptable. The circuit court here made that finding and it is supported by the record. And although the evidence at the disposition hearing did demonstrate that D.L., the foster parent at that time, was a “prospective” adoptive resource, the statute does not require, nor did the disposition court order, that a particular person be named as the adoptive parent. In fact, the TPR order specifically states that guardianship and custody are awarded to the Division of Milwaukee Child Protective Services (DMCPS) for securing an adoption. Accordingly, … the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the new disposition hearing ….

The court also relies on an unpublished, authored opinion in a case it says is very similar to this one: Walworth County Department of Health & Human Services v. Wilvina S., Nos. 2009AP1764, 2009AP1765, 2009AP1766, and 2009AP1767, unpublished slip op. ¶22 (WI App Feb. 24, 2010). (¶¶16-17).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment