Nicole P. v. Michael P., 2012AP780, District 3, 10/16/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Father’s motion to withdraw admission to grounds (based on asserted lack of understanding that: termination of parental rights required an unfitness determination; sole focus of dispositional hearing would be child’s best interests, with no concern for parent’s… Read more
1. Right to notice/participation
Veronica K. v. Michael K., 2012AP197, District 1, 10/10/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Michael K., incarcerated at the time of this TPR trial, appeared by audio-video hookup. He argues that his due process right to meaningful participation, State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266, ¶2, 288 Wis. 2d 504, 708 N.W.2d 698… Read more
State v. Tenesha T., 2012AP1283, District 1, 9/5/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Parent’s right to be present during TPR trial wasn’t violated when court allowed 30 minutes of testimony during parent’s volunary absence: ¶16 Tenesha bases her argument on Shirley E., contending that a parent’s right to be present during termination… Read more
Brown County Department of Human Services v. David D., 2012AP722, District 3, 95/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Parent’s appearance by telephone held to satisfy right to “meaningful participation”: ¶10 “A parent’s rights to his or her children are substantial and are protected by due process.” Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E… Read more
Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity ¶7 Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons. First, he appeared by telephone, not videoconference, and he did not waive his right to appear by videoconference. Second… Read more
Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App… Read more
Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither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
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
