 |
 |
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
der, so the State was required to make "reasonable efforts" to provide Mary with a variety of social services designed to help her meet those conditions. See § 48.415(2)(a)2.
Moreover, Emanuel does not identify the social services he wished he had received, or provide proof that he asked for services. He simply states that he would have liked to have been given "conditions to work on." The record belies his suggestion that he was given no guidance. In March 2000, the trial court established conditions for Emanuel to meet before the trial court would consider placing Kedar with him. These conditions included securing a suitable residence, maintaining contact with the social worker, attending family counseling and other conditions. Emanuel does not explain what the Bureau should have done to assist him in meeting these conditions and becoming a responsible parent.
The State alleged, and the jury found, that Emanuel had not established a parental relationship with his child, and that he abandoned the child. The evidence supported this verdict; Emanuel himself testified that from January 2001 until March 2003 he did not have any visits or contact with Kedar, and that he did not contact the Bureau or the trial court to learn how Kedar was doing. Emanuel admitted at trial that in Kedar's entire life, he has never been in a room alone with him, or spent a night with him. Emanuel does not identify how the denial of additional services or "conditions to work on" prevented him from contacting and establishing a relationship with his child, whether directly or through the Bureau.
Like the trial court, this court is unconvinced that Emanuel was treated differently because of his gender. To the extent Mary was offered more social services, it was due to the fact that she was trying to comply with the CHIPS order and was cooperating with the State. To the extent Emanuel may have been offered fewer social services, his absconding and repeated parole violations made such services problematic at best. There was no equal protection violation.
CONCLUSION
This court concludes that Emanuel was not denied due process or equal protection during the court proceedings. Emanuel has challenged neither the jury's finding that there were grounds to terminate his parental rights nor the trial court's discretionary decision to terminate his parental rights. Accordingly, this court affirms the order.
By the Court.--Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
Ordered not published (07-27-2005).
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.
|
|