 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dane County Department of Human Services v. Lisa B.2/1/2001
s warned under § 48.356." We have two responses to these arguments. First, we agree with the trial court that there is no requirement similar to that under Wis. Stat. § 48.425(2) (continuing CHIPS grounds for TPR), for a parent to be warned that a past felony conviction for child abuse can be grounds for termination of parental rights under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5). We also agree with the trial court that such a warning after the fact of a conviction would seem to serve no purpose. Cf. Winnebago County DSS v. Darrell A., 194 Wis. 2d 627, 644-45, 534 N.W.2d 907 (Ct. App. 1995) (since a homicide cannot be remedied after the fact, no TPR warning is needed). Second, Lisa tacitly concedes that she was given the appropriate warnings for a termination of her parental rights based on Glenn's continuing need for protection or services under § 48.415(2). Accordingly, even if the jury verdict finding grounds existed under subsec. (5) were somehow defective, grounds for TPR would still exist under subsec. (2).
. Lisa next argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to exclude evidence of events occurring prior to April 1998, which is when Glenn's most recent and continuous period of out-of-home placement began. Lisa's argument, apparently, is that because she was found to have met the conditions for Glenn's return to her home in December 1997, any evidence of events and activities prior to the subsequent foster placement in April 1998 would be irrelevant and prejudicial. She claims, in particular, that the department did not provide, or offer to provide, her any services after April 1998.
. We agree with the department that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in permitting testimony and other evidence relating to the entire history of the department's involvement with Glenn and Lisa. The trial court noted that the department had the burden of convincing the jury that there was a substantial likelihood that Lisa would not be able to meet the conditions for Glenn's return to her home within the twelve months following trial. The court also noted that it would possibly be to Lisa's advantage for the jury to hear that she had in fact, at one time, met the conditions for Glenn's return to her home. The court concluded that, on balance, it would be best for the jury to be informed of the entire history of the department's involvement:
I think you have a good story to tell the jury about Glenn being returned home to his mother. It's equally important that they hear-that they not just have that piece of information, that they have more information than that, and it's their job to weigh that and come to a decision on each of the elements.
We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting this evidence.
. Lisa next claims that the trial court erred by not prohibiting the department from calling any witnesses on its witness list because it missed the original deadline set by the court for the exchange of witness lists. The trial court indicated that it would deny Lisa's motion unless she could show prejudice, and we agree with the department that no such showing was made. The date for exchanging witness lists was set for three weeks prior to the originally scheduled trial date, and the department provided the list at noon on the day following the prescribed date. In addition, the trial was subsequently postponed for a month, with the result that Lisa and her trial counsel had the department's witness list some seven weeks prior to the TPR trial. We find no erroneous exercise of discretion in the court's permitting the department to call its witnesses. See Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1) ("Error may not be predica
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|