Dane County Department of Human Services v. Mable K., 828 N.W.2d 198

Dane County amended petitions seeking termination of Mable K.'s parental rights on grounds of continuing need for protection or services and abandonment.
The circuit court ordered Mable K. to appear in person at all proceedings; attorney Lehner represented her at the fact‑finding hearing, which began with a jury trial.
On the second day, Mable K. failed to personally appear at 9:00 a.m.; Lehner reported she was ill and stressed but remained present on the first day.
Dane County moved for default; after a delay to allow attempts to contact Mable K., the court resumed the trial, but later granted a default finding on grounds despite Lehner’s request to present additional evidence.
The circuit court then vacated some conclusions and, on remand, conducted further proceedings; the court of appeals dismissed the ensuing appeals.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reverses, remanding for a new fact‑finding hearing to be conducted with a jury if timely demanded, at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in granting default judgment after barring counsel from presenting evidence	Mable K. contends the default judgment was improper after denial of her attorney's evidence.	Dane County argues the court acted within discretion given nonappearance and the evidentiary record up to that point.	Yes; default remedy was erroneous and not fair.
Whether the default judgment was entered before establishing grounds by clear and convincing evidence	Mable K. argues grounds were not proven before default.	County contends sufficient evidence existed at the time of default.	Yes; grounds were not established before default.
Whether the remedy of returning to the pre‑error posture is fundamentally fair	Remedy would unreasonably burden Mable K. and impair the child’s interests.	Remedy aims to correct procedural error while preserving adjudicative integrity.	No; remedy is fundamentally unfair under the facts.
Whether Mable K. was denied a meaningful right to counsel under Shirley E. and related precedents	Counsel could not present key rebuttal evidence due to the error.	Counsel participated before and after the error; rights were not violated under Shirley E.	No; the court held counsel rights were violated and required a fair hearing on remand.

Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 246 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2001) (circuit must prove grounds by clear and convincing evidence before default)
Shirley E., 298 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2006) (statutory right to attorney; default judgments; fair procedures)
Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 170 (Wis. 2002) (best interests standard; heightened safeguards in TPR)
E.g., M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (parents have fundamental interests; child welfare weighs against improper rulings)
Steven V. v. Kelley H., 271 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 2004) (jury trial rights in TPR; civil nature understanding)