 |
 |
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
absence. Following the dispositional hearing, the trial court found that termination of Emanuel's parental rights would be in Kedar's best interest. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Emanuel raises a single issue on appeal: whether the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the petition on constitutional grounds. Emanuel argued at the trial court that he had been denied procedural due process, substantive due process and equal protection. He renews this claim on appeal, generally asserting a denial of constitutional rights. However, Emanuel does not challenge the jury's finding that he never established a significant or parental relationship with Kedar. Nor does Emanuel deny that his own status as an absconder made it difficult for the State to provide any services to him when he voluntarily made himself unavailable. Emanuel does not claim that he requested services which were denied.
"Constitutional issues present questions of law that are reviewed de novo." Door County DHFS v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 465, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999). A TPR adjudication is among the most consequential of judicial acts, involving "'the awesome authority of the State to destroy permanently all legal recognition of the parental relationship.'" Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, , 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856 (citation omitted). Termination of parental rights permanently extinguishes "all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations" that exist between parent and child. WISCONSIN STAT.ยง 48.40(2).
A parent's interest in the parent-child relationship and in the care, custody and management of his or her child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Steven V., 271 Wis. 2d 1, . The United States Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court have both recognized that due process in a TPR proceeding requires that parents be provided with fundamentally fair procedures. See id., -23, citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982). Specifically, parents are entitled to a hearing and proof of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. Steven V., 271 Wis. 2d 1, . Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Schultz v. Sykes, 2001 WI App 255, , 248 Wis. 2d 746, 638 N.W.2d 604.
Equal protection of the law is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. State v. Allen M., 214 Wis. 2d 302, 317, 571 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997). "Because courts have long recognized the right to parent one's children as fundamental, a statutory classification that significantly interferes with this right must be examined under strict judicial scrutiny." Id. at 318 (citations omitted). "Under a strict scrutiny analysis, a statutory classification which significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right 'cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.'" Id. (citation omitted).
Emanuel does not allege that the TPR statutes are unconstitutional on their face. Rather, he argues that the proceedings to which he was subjected violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Emanuel argues that there was gender discrimination against him. He explains:
There appeared to be a two tiered system in dealing with the mother and father of the children involved in this case. Mary K. was given conditions to work on throughout the pendency of the CHIPS proceedings as well as the TPR proceedings. Emanuel G. did not receive the same protection. He was not given conditions to work on through
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.
|
|