02-1919, 02-1920 In Re: the Termination of Parental Rights to Teyon D. v. Quinsanna D.

Listen to this article

“Instead, as the prosecutor asserted when arguing for admission of the evidence, the drug offenses “relate[d] specifically to the reason” Keyon and Teyon were removed from Quinsanna’s home, and the theft and obstructing offenses were relevant to whether Quinsanna had assumed parental responsibility for the twins:

The fact that she’s committing new crimes, exposing herself, and receiving incarceration terms as a result of those crimes … is relevant to her failure to assume parental responsibility. She’s prioritizing criminal activity over her children. She’s placing herself in a circumstance where she is not only at risk to being removed from her children’s lives, but was. …

“Further, even were we to accept Quinsanna’s characterization of the evidence of her criminal history as ‘other-acts’ evidence under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2), the evidence still would have been admissible because the statute ‘does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’… Here, the evidence was offered for ‘other purposes’ including proof of Quinsanna’s ‘opportunity’ to assume parental responsibility for Keyon and Teyon, her ‘intent’ to do so, and the ‘absence’ of any ‘mistake or accident’ preventing her from doing so.”

Accordingly, the order terminating defendant’s parental rights is affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Foley, J., Schudson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Carl W. Chesshir, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Thomas C. Binger, Milwaukee