Termination of Parental Rights

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services

Case No.: 2020AP982

Officials: STARK, P.J.

Focus: Termination of Parental Rights

In this termination of parental rights (“TPR”) action, the Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services (“the County”) filed a petition to terminate David’s parental rights to his son, Dylan, based on two grounds: continuing need of protection or services (“continuing CHIPS”), see WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2); and failure to assume parental responsibility, see § 48.415(6). The jury found that both grounds existed, and the circuit court subsequently entered a dispositional order terminating David’s parental rights. David then filed a motion for postdisposition relief, which the court denied.

David now appeals, arguing that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective by: (1) failing to argue that the application of the amended version of the continuing CHIPS statute, WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2), in the TPR proceedings against David violated David’s right to due process; (2) failing to introduce evidence at the grounds trial regarding additional visits that occurred between David and Dylan; and (3) failing to object to testimony during the grounds trial about Dylan’s negative reactions to David during certain supervised visits. David also argues the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was notified of the potential grounds for termination of his parental rights, as required by § 48.415(2)(a)1., because the notice he received referred to the elements set forth in the prior version of the continuing CHIPS statute, rather than the amended version.

Based on our supreme court’s recent decision in Eau Claire County Department of Human Services v. S.E., 2021 WI 56, 397 Wis. 2d 462, 960 N.W.2d 391, we conclude David’s attorney was not ineffective by failing to argue that the application of the amended version of the continuing CHIPS statute violated David’s right to due process. We also conclude that even if David’s attorney performed deficiently by failing to introduce evidence of the additional visits and by failing to object to testimony about Dylan’s negative reactions to David, David has failed to show that those alleged errors prejudiced his defense. Finally, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to establish that David was notified of the potential grounds for termination of his parental rights, as required by WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2)(a)1. We therefore affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.