Case Title: Marinette County v. Tammy C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1997AP002946

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-2946 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In re the Termination of Parental Rights of 
Anthony C. and Joseph C., Persons Under the Age 
of 18: 
 
Marinette County and Marinette County Department 
of Human Services,  
 
Petitioners-Appellants, 
 
v. 
Tammy C. and Anthony C., 
 
Respondents-Respondents.  
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 19, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
February 19, 1998 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Marinette 
 
JUDGE: 
Tim A. Duket 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioners-appellants there were briefs 
(in the Court of Appeals) by Chester C. Stauffacher and Marinette 
County Corporation Counsel, and Charles M. Minerman, Guardian ad 
Litem for both wards, all of Marinette and oral argument by 
Chester C. Stauffacher and Charles M. Minerman. 
 
 
For the respondent, Tammy C., there was a brief 
(in the Court of Appeals) by Len Kachinsky and Kachinsky & Petit 
Law Offices, Neenah and oral argument by Len Kachinsky. 
 
 
For the respondent, Anthony C., there was a brief 
(in the Court of Appeals) and oral argument by Barbara A. 
Cadwell, White Lake. 
 
No.  97-2946  
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-2946  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In re the Termination of Parental Rights 
of Anthony C. and Joseph C., Persons Under 
the Age of 18, 
 
Marinette County and Marinette County 
Department of Human Services, 
 
 
Petitioners-Appellants, 
 
 
v. 
 
Tammy C. and Anthony C., 
 
 
Respondents-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Marinette 
County, Tim A. Duket, Circuit Court Judge.  Reversed and cause 
remanded.  
¶1 
JANINE P. GESKE, J.   This case is before the court on 
bypass pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60 (1995-96).  
Marinette 
County 
(the 
county) 
and 
the 
Marinette 
County 
Department of Human Services (the department) appeal from a 
circuit court order dismissing a consolidated petition for the 
termination of parental rights (TPR) of the respondents Tammy C. 
and Anthony C., parents of Anthony C. and Joseph C.  The Circuit 
Court 
for 
Marinette 
County, 
the 
Honorable 
Tim 
A. 
Duket 
presiding, 
dismissed 
the 
TPR 
petition, 
relying 
on 
the 
interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a) given in In re D.F., 
No.  97-2946  
 
2 
147 Wis. 2d 486, 433 N.W.2d 592 (Ct. App. 1988).  In the circuit 
court's view, several CHIPS1 orders lacked the warning notice 
required by Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2), as referenced in Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.415(2)(a).  Based on its reading of D.F., the circuit court 
dismissed the TPR petition because of the earlier, allegedly 
defective notice.  We conclude, however, that the plain language 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 48.356(2), 
as 
referenced 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 48.415(2)(a), requires that the warning notice apply  only to 
orders removing children from placement with their parents or 
denying parental visitation, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 48.345, 
48.357, 48.363 or 48.365.  Based on our review of the record in 
this case, all the orders removing the children from placement 
with their parents or denying parental visitation, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. §§ 48.345, 48.357, 48.363 or 48.365, had the required 
warning notice.  We therefore reverse the circuit court order 
dismissing the consolidated TPR petition, and remand. 
¶2 
The issue raised on appeal, as framed by the parties, 
is whether Wis. Stat. §  48.356(2), as referenced in Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.415(2)(a),2 requires that each and every written CHIPS order 
                     
1 CHIPS is the commonly used acronym to denote the phrase 
"child in need of protection or services" as used in the 
Wisconsin Children's Code, chapter 48, Stats. 
2 The pertinent portion of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a) (1995-
1996) provides:  "That the child has been adjudged to be in need 
of protection or services and placed, or continued in a 
placement, outside his or her home pursuant to one or more court 
orders . . . containing the notice required by s. 48.356(2) 
. . ."  
Wisconsin Stat. § 48.356 (1995-96) provides: 
No.  97-2946  
 
3 
affecting an out-of-home placement of a child have a written TPR 
warning attached, when the TPR ground asserted is the continuing 
need of protection or services.  The issue as presented in the 
bypass petition calls into question the D.F. decision.  However, 
our review of the record and our reading of the applicable 
statutes persuades us otherwise.      
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
¶3 
Some of the pertinent facts are not in dispute.  A 
number of written CHIPS orders were entered in this case, 
beginning on August 4, 1993.  On that date the children were 
removed from the family home based on a finding of probable 
cause that one or both parents were unable, unwilling, or 
unavailable to provide adequate supervision and care for the 
children.  Venue originally was in the Circuit Court for Waupaca 
                                                                  
(1) Whenever the court orders a child to be placed 
outside his or her home or denies a parent visitation 
because the child has been adjudged to be in need of 
protection or services under s. 48.345, 48.357, 48.363 
or 48.365, the court shall orally inform the parent or 
parents who appear in court of any grounds for 
termination of parental rights under s. 48.415 which 
may be applicable and of the conditions necessary for 
the child to be returned to the home or for the parent 
to be granted visitation. 
 
(2) In addition to the notice required under sub. (1), 
any written order which places a child outside the 
home or denies visitation under sub. (1) shall notify 
the parent or parents of the information specified 
under sub. (1). 
 
All future statutory references will be to the 1995-96 
volume unless otherwise indicated. 
No.  97-2946  
 
4 
County.  This case was transferred to the Circuit Court for 
Marinette County on August 5, 1994. 
¶4 
The parties disagree as to whether the parents ever 
complied with the court-ordered conditions for the return of 
their children to their home.  According to the limited record 
before us, the children's father, Anthony C., suffers from a 
mental illness and also, for some time between 1994 and 1997, 
was in prison.  The circuit court returned the children to their 
parents' home in May 1994 but continued their formal supervision 
by the department.  On December 8, 1994, there was a new 
instance of substantiated neglect by the mother, Tammy C., and 
pursuant to a hearing held the following day, the children were 
again removed from the home.  At that time, according to the 
parties' briefs, the county became aware of an alleged defect in 
the warning notice of an earlier CHIPS order, but decided not to 
file a new CHIPS petition.  The parties' briefs do not state 
No.  97-2946  
 
5 
which particular order or orders were defective.3  Instead, the 
county sought and obtained an extension of the existing, 
allegedly defective dispositional orders.  Specific orders 
pertaining to the custody of Joseph C. and the young Anthony C. 
will be described more fully later in this opinion.    
¶5 
The department alleged the following additional facts 
in support of its petition for termination of parental rights.  
In December 1996 Tammy C., the children's mother, apparently 
told an administrative review board that she did not plan to 
make further efforts to follow through with the dispositional 
orders and alleviate the need for foster care for her two living 
children.  In March 1997 Anthony C., the children's father, was 
released from prison.  The department alleges that Anthony C. 
failed to comply with certain conditions imposed on him by court 
order, conditions necessary for the return of the children. 
                     
3 We have scoured the record on appeal and the parties' 
briefs in a futile effort to determine exactly which order or 
orders the parties and the circuit court considered "defective" 
for lack of a warning notice.  The docketing statement filed by 
Marinette County corporation counsel states: "In the course of 
preparing the case for trial, it was discovered that there was a 
significant clerical error in that at least one CHIPS order in 
the progression of several CHIPS orders placing each of the 
subject children in foster care outside of the home that did not 
contain the written warning for termination of parental rights." 
 The circuit court's order for dismissal of the termination of 
parental rights (TPR) petition states: ". . . and the Court 
having reviewed the files in this matter, including the juvenile 
files relating to the children, and the Court having observed 
that as to each child there is at least one CHIPS order in the 
progression of CHIPS orders that does not contain the written 
TPR warnings required by Section 48.356(2) . . ." 
No.  97-2946  
 
6 
¶6 
Consequently, on April 14, 1997, the department filed 
a petition to terminate the parental rights of Anthony C. and 
Tammy C. on the grounds of abandonment and a continuing need for 
protection or services.  Separately, each parent moved to 
dismiss the petitions.  In their dismissal motions, the parents 
each alleged that the initial CHIPS orders, which had been 
extended throughout the proceedings, did not contain written TPR 
warnings required by Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2), as referenced in 
Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a).  At a hearing on September 10, 1997, 
the circuit court consolidated the two proceedings on behalf of 
both children.  At that time,  the county conceded that it could 
not maintain the abandonment ground against the father, Anthony 
C., based on his recent incarceration, and because he had had 
some meaningful contact with the children.  
¶7 
The county also conceded that some orders in the 
progression 
of 
orders 
affecting 
these 
two 
children 
were 
defective.  According to the county, none of the other grounds 
for termination of parental rights enumerated in Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.415 was applicable to the TPR petition.  The circuit court, 
reasoning that D.F. requires that "the statutory warning 
required by sec. 48.356(2), Stats., is given each time an order 
places a child outside his or her home. . .," then dismissed the 
TPR petitions on the merits and with prejudice.  Shortly 
thereafter, the circuit court issued orders revising and 
extending the dispositional order for each child until September 
10, 1998.  The circuit court attached the notice concerning 
grounds for termination of parental rights to those orders. 
No.  97-2946  
 
7 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 
¶8 
The county contends that the interpretation of Wis. 
Stat. § 48.356(2) in D.F. operates to permanently preclude the 
prosecution of TPR proceedings, brought on the grounds of a 
continuing need of protection or services, when any one of the 
CHIPS orders affecting out-of-home placement does not contain 
the written TPR warnings.  The county also maintains that 
several of the orders affecting the out-of-home placement of the 
children did not contain the § 48.356(2) warning.  Based on its 
reading of the practical effect of D.F. upon this case, the 
county asserts that the parental rights of Anthony C. and Tammy 
C. and similarly situated parents can never be terminated when 
the written TPR warning is erroneously excluded from any one of 
a progression of CHIPS orders, and where the only available 
ground for termination is the continuing need for foster 
placement.  That result, according to the county, is one 
contrary to the "best interests of the child" purpose of the 
Children's Code because the original petition must be dismissed 
and the children must be returned home.  According to the 
county's brief, it would have to wait for another incident to 
justify a new CHIPS order from the circuit court and "start the 
whole process over again with great care to make sure that the 
appropriate TPR warning is provided without fail in every CHIPS 
Order thereafter.  Then, after several more perfect CHIPS orders 
are in place over a period of years, another (TPR) action can be 
commenced." 
No.  97-2946  
 
8 
¶9 
The parents agree with the county's assertion that 
some 
of 
the 
orders 
affecting 
the 
children's 
out-of-home 
placement did not contain the Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2) warning.  
The parents contend that under D.F., those orders are fatally 
defective to the TPR petition.  
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶10 The issue presented on bypass is whether Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.356(2), 
as 
referenced 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 48.415(2)(a), 
requires that each and every CHIPS order affecting the out-of-
home placement of a child must have a written TPR notice 
attached if the particular ground of children in need of 
protection or services is the basis for the termination of 
parental rights.  Resolving this issue requires us to interpret 
and apply Wis. Stat. §§  48.356(2) and 48.415(2)(a).  Questions 
of statutory interpretation and the application of statutes to 
undisputed facts are questions of law which we review without 
deference to the circuit court or the court of appeals.  See In 
Interest of Jamie L., 172 Wis. 2d 218, 225, 493 N.W.2d 56 
(1992). 
¶11 In Jamie L. we considered the notice requirements for 
a TPR petition where the ground asserted was the continuing need 
for protection or services.  We set out the following rules for 
statutory interpretation: 
 
The goal of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the 
legislature's intent. To find that intent, we first 
look to the statute's language.  If the statute's 
words unambiguously declare the legislature's intent, 
this court's duty is to apply that intent to the facts 
presented; we may not look beyond the statute's 
No.  97-2946  
 
9 
language 
to determine 
what that 
language 
means.  
Consequently, we will only construe a statute if the 
statute is ambiguous.  A statute is ambiguous if well-
informed persons could reasonably reach different 
conclusions concerning its meaning.  In construing an 
ambiguous statute, we examine the statute's history, 
context, subject matter, scope, and object.   
Id., 172 Wis. 2d at 225 (citations omitted). 
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 
¶12 In conformance with those rules, we first consider the 
language of the statutes.  Section 48.415, Stats., identifies 
the possible grounds for involuntary termination of parental 
rights.  That section provides that one ground for involuntary 
termination, the continuing need for protection or services, 
shall be established by proving that "the child has been 
adjudged to be in need of protection or services and placed, or 
continued in a placement, outside his or her home pursuant to 
one or more court orders . . . containing the notice required by 
s. 48.356(2)."   Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(2)(a).  This language 
is clear in its imposition of three conditions.  First, the 
subject child must have been adjudged to need protection or 
services by the county.  Second, because of that determination 
of need, the child must have been placed outside the parental 
home pursuant to at least one court order, or similarly had his 
or her out-of-home placement continued.  Third, the order or 
orders placing the child outside the home must have contained 
the notice required in another statute, § 48.356(2).  Well-
informed 
persons 
could 
not 
reasonably 
differ 
as 
to 
the 
requirements of this statute. 
No.  97-2946  
 
10
¶13 Next, 
we 
consider 
the 
language 
of 
the 
statute 
referenced in Wis. Stat. § 48.415.  Section 48.356(2), Stats., 
provides: "In addition to the notice required under sub. (1), 
any written order which places a child outside the home or 
denies visitation under sub. (1) shall notify the parent or 
parents of the information specified under sub. (1)."  As we 
recognized 
in 
Jamie 
L., 
well-informed 
people 
could 
not 
reasonably differ as to what these words mean.  This statute 
unambiguously requires that any written order which places the 
child outside the home under § 48.356(1) notify the parent of 
the same information that sub. (1) specifies.  See Jamie L., 172 
Wis. 2d at 225-26.  The information specified under § 48.356(1) 
includes any applicable grounds for termination of parental 
rights under §  48.415 and the conditions necessary for the 
child to be returned to the home.  See id. at 226.   
¶14 Jamie L. concerned the content of the required notice. 
 This case concerns when the required warning notice must be 
given.  In our view, Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and 48.356(2) 
are unambiguous in their answer. 
¶15 Application of the notice requirement of Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.356, as referenced in Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a), is limited 
to orders placing a child outside his or her home4 in certain 
                     
4 1995 Wis. Act 275, § 54 amended the 1993-94 version of 
Wis. Stat. § 48.356 to require the circuit court to inform a 
parent 
denied 
visitation 
of 
any 
applicable 
grounds 
for 
involuntary termination of the parental rights.  Because of the 
facts presented in this case, we address only orders placing a 
child outside the home.  
No.  97-2946  
 
11
circumstances.  Section 48.356(1) defines those circumstances as 
when the child has been adjudged in need of protection or 
services under one of four particular statutory provisions: 
§§ 48.345, 48.357, 48.363, or 48.365.  Section 48.345 concerns 
the entry of orders directing disposition of children adjudged 
in need of protection or services.  Section 48.357 concerns 
placement changes after a dispositional order has been entered. 
 Section 48.363 concerns revision of dispositional orders when 
the revision does not involve a change in placement.  Finally, 
§ 48.365 
concerns 
the 
extension 
of 
dispositional 
orders, 
including dispositional orders that had previously been revised. 
¶16 The language of both Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and 
48.356(2) show that the legislature has chosen to require a 
notice warning parents of the potential for termination of their 
parental rights only when their children are taken from the home 
under a dispositional order or its extension or revision.  
Dispositional orders may stay in place for as long as 12 months 
before they are terminated or extended.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.355(4).  Similarly, most revisions or extensions of a 
dispositional order may stay in place for as long as 12 months. 
 See id.  
¶17 If, pursuant to a dispositional order or its extension 
or revision, the child has been adjudged in need of protection 
or services and has been placed outside the home for a 
cumulative total period of at least six months, that period of 
out-of-home placement can, in conjunction with other facts, 
constitute grounds for termination of parental rights.  See Wis. 
No.  97-2946  
 
12
Stat. § 48.415(2)(c).5  To succeed on a TPR petition, the 
petitioner also has to show a substantial likelihood that the 
parent will not meet the conditions established for the return 
of his or her child within the 12-month period following the 
fact-finding hearing which occurs after someone contests the 
termination.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 48.424; 48.422.  
¶18 In 
contrast 
to 
the 
12-month 
duration 
of 
a 
dispositional order, when a child is placed outside the home 
pursuant to an order for temporary physical custody under Wis. 
Stat. § 48.13, removal from the home is for a much shorter 
period.  If the child is not released immediately as provided by 
Wis. Stat. § 48.20, the circuit court shall conduct a hearing 
within 48 hours of the decision to take the child into custody, 
excluding weekends and holidays.  See Wis. Stat. § 48.21(1)(a).6 
 By the time of that hearing, other procedural time limits come 
into play.  See Wis. Stat. §§  48.21(1)(a); 48.25; 48.315.  If a 
petition under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 is filed, the circuit court 
will conduct a fact-finding hearing and make a determination as 
to whether the child is in need of protection or services which 
                     
5 Prior to the enactment of 1995 Wis. Act 275, § 78, Wis. 
Stat. § 48.415(2)(c) required, as partial proof of the TPR 
ground of a child in need of protection or services, that a 
child 3 years of age or older have been outside the home for a 
cumulative total period of one year.  The current version of the 
statute does not make a distinction between children older or 
younger than 3 years of age.   
6 Prior to the enactment of 1995 Wis. Act 275, § 31, Wis. 
Stat. § 48.21(1)(a) required the juvenile court to conduct this 
hearing within 24 hours of the decision to hold the child, 
excluding weekends and holidays.  
No.  97-2946  
 
13
can be ordered by the court.  See Wis. Stat. § 48.31(2).7  If the 
court finds that the child is in need of such protection or 
services, at the close of the fact-finding hearing the court 
must set a date for a dispositional hearing.  The dispositional 
hearing is held no more than 30 days later for a child held in 
non-secure custody.  See Wis. Stat. § 48.31(7).  Section 48.315 
covers the types of permitted exceptions to the time periods set 
out in the above referenced provisions. 
¶19 The distinctions between dispositional orders and 
temporary physical custody orders include the degree of fact-
finding required before the order is entered, and the potential 
consequences once such orders have been entered.  Temporary 
physical custody orders are just that-temporary.  Those orders 
generally expire within 30 days, unless extended.  See, e.g., 
Wis. Stat. § 48.21, Hearing for child in custody; Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.21(4), Continuation of custody; Wis. Stat. § 48.227(4)(e)2, 
 Runaway homes; Wis. Stat. § 48.25(2), Petition; authorization 
to file.  After a petition has been filed, other statutes 
provide for short time frames during the hearing stage.  See, 
e.g., Wis. Stat § 48.30(1), Plea hearing; Wis. Stat. § 48.305, 
                     
7 Prior to the enactment of 1995 Wis. Act 275, § 52, Wis. 
Stat. § 48.31(2) simply provided that at the conclusion of the 
hearing, the court or jury shall make a determination of the 
facts, and that if the court or jury finds that the facts 
alleged in the petition were not proved, the court shall dismiss 
the petition with prejudice.  As amended, the current subsection 
provides that the juvenile court determine whether the child 
needs protection or services which the juvenile court can order.  
No.  97-2946  
 
14
Hearing upon the involuntary removal of a child; Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.31(7), Fact-finding hearing.   
¶20 Dispositional orders, on the other hand, can be in 
effect for up to 12 months, see Wis. Stat. § 48.355(4); and 
longer if the circuit court orders an extension, see Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.365(5).  In addition, placement of a child outside of his 
or her home pursuant to a temporary physical custody order will 
not, by itself, result in the type of out-of-home placement that 
can form the basis for a termination of parental rights.  
Placement outside the home pursuant to a dispositional order, in 
conjunction with parental unwillingness or inability to comply 
with the conditions of the dispositional order, can form a basis 
for termination of parental rights.  See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2). 
  It is that potential permanent loss of parental rights which 
necessitates the requirement for a warning notice.8 
¶21 In an earlier case, we described the gravity of the 
state's power to terminate the parental relationship, and the 
concomitant rigor of procedures constraining that power. 
 
It is apparent that the Wisconsin legislature has 
recognized 
the importance 
of parental 
rights by 
setting up a panoply of substantive rights and 
                     
8 Part of the confusion in the record and the parties' 
briefs as to which CHIPS order or orders were defective may stem 
from an imprecise use of statutory terms.  Marinette County's 
petition to bypass states ". . . on August 11, 1993 the children 
were taken into custody and placed in foster care pursuant to a 
CHIPS dispositional order issued by the Waupaca County Juvenile 
Court." (Emphasis supplied).  As we discuss below, the juvenile 
court issued orders for temporary physical custody of the 
children in August 1993, and placed them in foster care.  No 
dispositional order was entered until January 1994. 
No.  97-2946  
 
15
procedures to assure that the parental rights will not 
be 
terminated 
precipitously, 
arbitrarily, 
or 
capriciously, but only after a deliberative, well 
considered, fact-finding process utilizing all the 
protections afforded by the statutes unless there is a 
specific, knowledgeable, and voluntary waiver. 
In re Termination of Parental Rights to M.A.M., 116 Wis. 2d 432, 
437, 342 N.W.2d 410 (1984).  The court of appeals in D.F. echoed 
that theme: "[The legislature] has chosen, for reasons which we 
consider apparent, to surround the CHIPS grounds for involuntary 
termination with procedural safeguards which will assure that a 
parent will be fully informed of the grounds for termination of 
parental rights which may be applicable."  147 Wis. 2d at 498. 
 
¶22 The 
circuit 
court 
in 
this 
case 
cited 
D.F. 
as 
controlling its decision to dismiss the consolidated TPR 
petition because, according to the circuit court's review of the 
record,  some of the earlier CHIPS orders did not include a 
notice warning of the potential for termination of parental 
rights based upon the ground of a continuing need for protection 
or services, should the parent fail to comply with the 
conditions of the order.  The circuit court quoted the D.F. 
court as requiring that "[t]he statutory warning required by 
sec. 48.356(2), Stats., be given each time an order places a 
child outside his or her home." 
¶23 It is important to point out that the D.F. text quoted 
by the circuit court is completed by qualifying phrases 
appearing both before and after it.  Those phrases surrounding 
the portion quoted by the circuit court are italicized herein 
for illustration:  "Second, a continuing need for protection and 
No.  97-2946  
 
16
services can be a basis for involuntary termination of parental 
rights only if the statutory warning required by sec. 48.356(2), 
Stats., is given each time an order places a child outside his 
or her home pursuant to secs. 48.345, 48.357, 48.363 or 48.365." 
 D.F., 147 Wis. 2d at 498-99.  As we demonstrate below, all of 
the orders placing Joseph C. and Anthony C. outside their home, 
pursuant to §§ 48.345, 48.357, 48.363 or 48.365, include the 
requisite notice of warning.  Other orders for the children's 
out-of-home placement were temporary physical custody orders, or 
extensions of such temporary orders, and thus were not subject 
to the procedural rigor of orders potentially leading to a loss 
of parental rights based on a continuing need for protection or 
services. 
STATUTORY APPLICATION 
¶24 In this case, the children of Anthony C. and Tammy C. 
were not the subject of a dispositional order under Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.356 until January 25, 1994.  Under the dispositional orders 
of that date, both children were placed in foster homes, with 
formal supervision by the department of human services effective 
until July 19, 1994.  The children had been in foster care prior 
to entry of the dispositional orders, but that earlier foster 
care was only non-secure, temporary physical custody, pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. §§ 48.13, 48.19, 48.205, 48.207 and 48.21.  None 
of the latter provisions requires a notice warning parents of 
the potential for termination of their parental rights as does 
Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a), as referenced in § 48.356(2). 
No.  97-2946  
 
17
¶25 There is no dispute that the dispositional orders of 
January 25, 1994 pertaining to each of Anthony C.'s and Tammy 
C.'s children contained the required written warnings.  Thus, 
the initial dispositional orders are valid under Wis. Stat. 
§§ 48.415(2)(a) and 48.356(2). 
¶26  Subsequently, on May 16, 1994, the circuit court for 
Waupaca County issued orders granting Tammy C.'s petition to 
change the placement of her children to her home.  Those orders, 
by their very terms, did not direct the children to be placed 
outside their home, and thus did not require the Wis. Stat. 
§ 48.356 
warning. 
 
Those 
orders 
did 
not 
terminate 
the 
dispositional orders or change the condition that the children 
be under the formal supervision of the department of human 
services. 
¶27 On July 13, 1994, while the children were still placed 
with their mother but under the formal supervision of the 
department, the circuit court for Waupaca County granted a 
temporary extension of the dispositional orders pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 48.365(6).  The July 13, 1994 orders did not place the 
children outside the home.  Similarly, on August 5, 1994, the 
circuit court granted a formal extension of the dispositional 
orders, continuing placement with the mother and supervision by 
the department.9  Because neither of those orders placed the 
                     
9 At the same time, the circuit court for Waupaca County 
also ordered a change of venue to the circuit court for 
Marinette County, as the county in which the mother then 
resided.   
No.  97-2946  
 
18
children outside the home, the Wis. Stat. § 48.356 warning was 
not required. 
¶28 Several months later the department requested and took 
temporary 
physical 
custody 
of 
the 
children, 
based 
on 
substantiated physical neglect by their mother.  After issuing 
several orders for temporary physical custody pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 48.21, the circuit court for Marinette County ordered a 
change in placement and extension of the original dispositional 
orders until January 31, 1996, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 48.363 
and 
48.365.  
These 
orders, 
revising 
and 
extending 
the 
dispositional orders, included the notice required by § 48.356. 
 These orders resulted in placing the children outside their 
mother's home. 
¶29 In August 1995 the circuit court granted a petition by 
the department to extend the dispositional orders until July 20, 
1996.  In the department's view, the mother, Tammy C., had 
failed to meet the conditions imposed by the dispositional 
orders, and therefore the department was unwilling to withdraw 
its 
supervision 
of 
the 
children 
until 
the 
mother 
had 
demonstrated a desire and ability to meet the conditions ordered 
by the court.  The August 17, 1995 orders granting the extension 
and maintaining the children's placement outside their mother's 
home included the warning required by Wis. Stat. § 48.356, as 
referenced in Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). 
¶30 On December 18, 1995, the circuit court for Marinette 
County issued another order in Anthony C.'s case, changing his 
placement and revising the dispositional order.  This order did 
No.  97-2946  
 
19
not include the Wis. Stat. § 48.356 warning, but that warning 
was not required because the order did not change young Anthony 
C.'s placement from that of his mother's home to somewhere 
outside the home.  At the time of the December 18, 1995 order, 
young Anthony C. had already been placed outside his mother's 
home pursuant to the valid order entered March 7, 1995. 
¶31 The next orders concerning placement of Anthony C.'s 
and Tammy C.'s children were issued on July 31, 1996.  Those 
orders extended and revised the dispositional orders for both 
children, and were effective until July 17, 1997.  Those orders 
contained the warnings required by Wis. Stat. § 48.356. 
¶32 In sum, all of the dispositional orders placing the 
children of Tammy C. and Anthony C. outside of the home 
contained the required warnings.10  Orders extending a condition 
of the dispositional orders, such as allowing supervision by the 
department, but issued while the children were placed with one 
                     
10 We recognize the existence of another court of appeals 
decision, where the court declined to require that the warning 
be attached to several extended or revised dispositional orders. 
 See In Interest of K.K. and T.K., 162 Wis. 2d 431, 469 N.W.2d 
881 (Ct. App. 1991).  The K.K. court distinguished the warning 
requirement of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a), as discussed in D.F. 
where the ground for termination was the continuing need for 
protection 
or 
services, 
from 
the 
ground 
at 
issue 
in 
K.K.abandonment.  The warning requirement when the termination 
ground is abandonment arises from Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1)(a)2:  
"The child has been placed, or continued in a placement, outside 
the parent's home by a court order containing the notice 
required by s. 48.356(2) . . . and the parent has failed to 
visit or communicate with the child for a period of 3 months or 
longer".  The K.K. court read that subsection as requiring only 
one order to have the warning. 
No.  97-2946  
 
20
or both parents, did not require the Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2) 
warning.  Because the parents in this case received the required 
written statutory warnings, it was error for the circuit court 
to dismiss the TPR petitions.  We therefore reverse the order of 
dismissal, and remand to the circuit court for reinstatement of 
the TPR petitions. 
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is reversed 
and the cause remanded. 
 
 
 
1