Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T.
2011 WI 30
Wis.2011Background
- Gwenevere born 2005 to Tammy W-G. and Jacob T.; Jacob provided early care during pregnancy and infancy; Tammy and Jacob separated with disputed visitation, Tammy imposed supervised visits; Jacob moved to Illinois in 2005 with little contact thereafter; Tammy filed petition to terminate parental rights in 2009 based on Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6); jury found termination justified and circuit court terminated rights in 2009; court of appeals certified questions regarding § 48.415(6) and its constitutionality; this Court affirmed, holding a totality-of-the-circumstances test considering the child’s life as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 48.415(6) analysis | Tammy W-G. argues statute allows broader consideration of entire life; Jacob contends only early life matters. | Jacob argues for a narrow time-frame focusing on initial contact; Tammy argues for full-life consideration. | Totality-of-the-circumstances test; entire life considered; not limited to a fixed period. |
| Hazardous living environment consideration | Tammy contends jury could consider hazardous environment factors in evaluating relationship. | Jacob contends no hazardous-environment reliance in this case. | Fact-finder may consider hazardous living environment under totality analysis. |
| Constitutionality as applied | Statute as applied to Jacob complies with due process and is rationally related to interests. | Argues potential constitutional infirmity under certain applications. | Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) is constitutional as applied to Jacob; applicable standard is rational basis given no protected liberty interest here. |
| Directed verdict and jury instructions | Disputed whether the court should have directed verdict given life-wide evidence. | Waiver of objections to jury instructions; life-wide analysis supports denial of directed verdict. | No error in denial of directed verdict; jury instructions deemed waived; life-spanning analysis applied. |
| Time period relevance post-establishment of substantial relationship | Argues that once substantial relationship exists, later events are irrelevant. | Majority adopts ongoing, life-spanning evaluation. | Relevant period is lifetime; later events do not defeat established substantial relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Quinsanna D., 259 Wis. 2d 429 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (discussed hazardous environment exposure in evaluating parental responsibility)
- Baby Girl K., 113 Wis. 2d 429 (Wis. 1983) (holding that a parent may not be terminated without considering the length and quality of relationship)
- J.L.W. (Mrs. R. v. Mr. & Mrs. B.), 102 Wis. 2d 118 (Wis. 1981) (due process analysis for parental rights termination; focus on developed relationship)
- Caban v. Mohammad, 441 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1979) (Significant parental interest when developed relationship exists)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (unwed father’s substantial relationship required for protection)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (fundamental liberty interest in custodial parenting)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (developed parent-child relationship bars termination without unfitness finding)
- Randy A.J. v. Norma I.J., 270 Wis. 2d 384 (Wis. 2004) (recognizes fundamental liberty interests in parental relationship)
- Ponn v. D.H.S., 279 Wis.2d 169 (Wis. 2005) (presumption of constitutionality; as-applied challenge framework)
- State v. Wood, 323 Wis.2d 321 (Wis. 2010) (as-applied constitutional challenges require proof beyond doubt)
- Society Ins. v. LIRC, 326 Wis.2d 444 (Wis. 2010) (describes as-applied challenge standards (contextual))