Juveniles – TPR

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Juveniles – TPR

Queentesta H. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to Majesty Q. H., her daughter. The order was entered after a jury found on two special-verdict forms, as material, that: (1) (a) Majesty was a child in continuing need of protection or services, (b) Queentesta H. did not “meet the conditions established for the safe return” of Majesty to Queentesta H.’s home, and (c) there was “a substantial likelihood that Queentesta [H.] will not meet these conditions within the nine-month period following the conclusion” of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing; and (2) Queentesta H. had abandoned Majesty by not visiting or communicating with her “for a period of three months or longer.” The trial court answered “yes” to the following first questions on each of the verdict firms:

First Verdict Form:  “Has Majesty [] been adjudged to be in need of protection or services and placed outside the home for a cumulative total period of six months or longer pursuant to one or more court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice required by law?”

Second Verdict Form:  “Was Majesty [] placed, or continued in a placement, outside Queentesta [H.]’s home pursuant to a court order which contained the termination of parental rights notice required by law?”

(Emphasis added.) The only issue Queentesta H. raises on this appeal is whether the trial court erred by answering the first question on each of the special verdict forms rather than submitting those questions to the jury because, Queentesta H. contends, a jury should have determined whether the notices referred to in the two questions had “the termination of parental rights notice required by law.” She does not argue that any other finding made by the trial court’s answer to those questions was error. Stated another way, she does not contest on this appeal that there was any dispute that: (1) Majesty had “been adjudged to be in need of protection or services and placed outside the home for a cumulative total period of six months or longer pursuant to one or more court orders”; or (2) Majesty was “placed, or continued in a placement, outside Queentesta [H.]’s home pursuant to a court order.” Her only objection on this appeal is that the trial court should have let the jury determine whether the court orders had “the termination of parental rights notice required by law.”

We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2014AP761 State v. Queentesta H.

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, DiMotto, J., Fine, J.

Full Text