 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Termination of Parental Rights to Kedar K.6/7/2005
Emanuel G. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to Kedar K. He does not challenge the jury's finding that there were grounds to terminate his parental rights, or the trial court's decision to terminate his parental rights. Rather, Emanuel argues that the termination should be reversed because his constitutional rights were violated when he and the child's mother were treated differently during the Children in Need of Protection and Services (CHIPS) and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) proceedings. This court rejects his argument based on the facts of this case and affirms the order.
BACKGROUND
Kedar K., who was born on July 10, 1996, is the non-marital child of Emanuel and Mary K. Emanuel was adjudicated Kedar's father in November 1997, but has never lived with Kedar.
Emanuel was on parole when Kedar was born. In September 1998, when Kedar was approximately twenty-six months old, Emanuel's parole was revoked. He remained incarcerated until August 1999.
Kedar was the subject of an abuse and neglect referral in October 1998. The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare ("Bureau") began providing services to Mary and her children under a CHIPS order. Kedar was removed from Mary's care in June 1999 due to Mary's chronic homelessness, non-cooperation with shelter and social services, and inability to care for her children. At the time of removal, Emanuel was incarcerated.
In the fall of 1999, Emanuel was released on parole and participated in at least one supervised visit arranged through Kedar's case manager. In April 2000, Emanuel failed to cooperate with the terms of his parole. An absconder warrant was issued. Interaction with Kedar's case manager ceased.
Emanuel was again incarcerated from January 2001 through September 2001. In November 2001, another absconder warrant was issued. Emanuel was not arrested until November 2003. Emanuel did not have any contact with Kedar from January 2001 through February 2003, when Emanuel again worked with Kedar's case manager to arrange a visit.
From 1999 through April 2003, Kedar remained placed outside Mary's home pursuant to a series of CHIPS orders that were continuously extended on a yearly basis. These orders outlined conditions that Mary needed to satisfy before Kedar could be returned to her care. Similarly, Emanuel, who attended the first CHIPS hearing and several subsequent hearings, was also given conditions to satisfy before the trial court would consider allowing Kedar to be placed in Emanuel's care.
A TPR petition was filed in April 2003. With respect to Mary, it alleged as grounds for termination that Kedar remained a child in need of protection and services and that Mary had failed to meet the conditions established for Kedar's return to the home. See WIS. STAT.§ 48.415(2). With respect to Emanuel, the State alleged that he had abandoned the child, see § 48.415(1)(a)3., and failed to assume parental responsibility, see § 48.415(6).
Prior to trial, Emanuel filed a series of motions to dismiss the petition, alleging that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection had been violated because he did not always have notice of hearings and he was not provided the same social services as Mary. The trial court ultimately rejected Emanuel's arguments and denied the motions. The jury found grounds to terminate Emanuel's parental rights, based on failure to assume parental responsibility and abandonment.
The trial court then considered whether to terminate Emanuel's parental rights. When Emanuel did not appear for the second day of the dispositional hearing, the trial court proceeded in his
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|