State v. A.M.-C., 2021AP94 & 2021AP95, 3/30/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity The state petitioned to terminate A.M.-C.’s rights to two of her children on failure-to-assume and continuing-CHIPS grounds. After being told (apparently via interpreter, as Spanish is her first language) that she had to attend all hearings, A.M.-C. moved to… Read more
b. Telephonic appearance
Adams County Health and Human Serv. Dep’t. v. D.J.S., 2019AP506, District 4, 6/20/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity You don’t see defense wins in TPR appeals very often! In this case, D.J.S., the witnesses, the GAL, and counsel for both parties were at the Adams County Courthouse. For unknown reasons,the judge appeared by… 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Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity ¶7 Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons.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Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to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Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither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
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
