880 N.W.2d 107
Wis.2016Background
- Mother Juanita A., with cognitive and mental-health limitations, had son Matthew removed multiple times; Matthew was placed in foster care in August 2011.
- The circuit court issued an October 11, 2011 dispositional order that attached the statutorily required written TPR (termination of parental rights) warnings; several later extension orders omitted the written warnings but gave oral warnings at some hearings.
- St. Croix County filed a TPR petition (continuing-CHIPS and failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility grounds); the circuit court found written notice and other statutory elements satisfied and terminated Juanita’s parental rights.
- The court of appeals reversed, relying on Waukesha Cnty. v. Steven H., which was read to require the last CHIPS order to contain the written §48.356(2) warnings and suggested waiting six months after the last order before filing TPR.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: it held the TPR statute requires that one or more CHIPS orders contain the written notice (not necessarily the last order), rejected a bright-line “last-order, plus six-months” rule from Steven H., and affirmed termination on the merits (county proved all continuing-CHIPS elements by clear and convincing evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §48.415(2) requires the written §48.356(2) warning to appear in the last CHIPS order (and that a TPR petition must wait six months after that last order) | County: statute requires that one or more CHIPS orders contain the warning; October 11, 2011 order sufficed | Juanita: last CHIPS order before the petition lacked written warnings and Steven H. requires the last order (issued ≥6 months before filing) to contain them | Court: §48.415(2) requires one or more CHIPS orders to contain the written warning; Steven H. did not create a universal “last-order, six-months” rule and that language is withdrawn/limited to Steven H. facts |
| Whether the written-and-oral notice provided here was constitutionally/ statutorily adequate | County: Juanita received written notice on Oct. 11, 2011 and multiple oral warnings; she had counsel and multiple hearings—notice adequate | Juanita: multiple later orders omitted written warnings; oral warnings were not given at all required hearings and she was confused | Court: notice was adequate because one CHIPS order included the written notice and she also received several oral warnings; circuit court’s factual finding of adequate notice not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the county made reasonable efforts (§48.415(2)(a)2.) and the child was out ≥6 months (§48.415(2)(a)3.) | County: provided extensive services, supervised visits, transportation, therapy, personal care—reasonable efforts; Matthew was out since July 2011 | Juanita: argued efforts/notice/conditions insufficient | Court: credible evidence showed reasonable efforts and that Matthew was out well over six months |
| Whether Juanita failed to meet return conditions and was unlikely to do so within 9 months | County: evidence showed inconsistent parenting, safety lapses, and refusal of releases; likelihood of meeting conditions within 9 months was low | Juanita: argued she met some conditions and improved | Court: credible evidence supported circuit court’s finding that Juanita failed to meet conditions and was unlikely to within 9 months; TPR termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Waukesha Cnty. v. Steven H., 233 Wis. 2d 344 (2000) (unanimous decision addressing interplay of §48.356(2) and §48.415(2); clarified that not every CHIPS order must contain written notice but in that case the last order did)
- D.F.R. v. Juneau Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 147 Wis. 2d 486 (1988) (earlier court of appeals decision taking a strict approach to §48.356(2) notice requirements)
- Shannon E.T. v. Alicia M. V.M., 299 Wis. 2d 601 (2007) (standard of review for statutory interpretation; cited for de novo review)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (principles for statutory interpretation)