Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Wilvina S., 2009AP1764, District II, 2/24/2010

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Stipulation, Grounds
Signed stipulation to grounds, which effectively withdrew jury demand, upheld where trial court addressed parent in court and on record, and she “acknowledged her understanding clearly, repeatedly, and without equivocation.”

TPR – New Evidence
Postdisposition change in placement affect “advisability of the original adjudication” and therefore didn’t amount to “new evidence” under  § 48.46:

¶25 We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied Wilvina’s Wis. Stat. § 48.46 motion for a rehearing based on new evidence.  There simply is no indication that the change in adoptive resource affected the advisability of the trial court’s adjudication terminating Wilvina’s parental rights.  The court clarified at the post termination hearing that its adjudication addressed the children’s best interests and the termination of Wilvina’s parental rights based on its finding that Wilvina is an unfit mother who would not meet the conditions of return within the next nine months.  The court recognized that it had also made a placement determination for the children, namely an “[a]doptive resource.”  However, as the trial court stated in denying Wilvina’s motion, “I have not heard any newly discovered evidence that affects the disposition.  It affects the placement, but not the disposition.”

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail