Opinion ID: 2214324
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Department's position

Text: ¶ 21 After the parties submitted their briefs to this court, the Department filed a Supplemental Authority Letter, which raised a new argument. The Department pointed out that Wis. Stat. § 48.355(2)(b)1. was amended in 2007 by 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, § 1248. Accordingly, § 48.355(2)(b)1. (2003-04), [7] which was in existence at the time the dispositional orders were entered, and § 48.355(2)(b)1. (2007-08), [8] which was the version in effect at the time of trial, contain different language. ¶ 22 First, the Department contends that the 2003-04 statute has a less exacting standard that should apply here because the 2003-04 statute was in effect when the court entered the dispositional orders and for the majority of the CHIPS proceedings. The Department argues that the dispositional orders were sufficient under Wis. Stat. § 48.355(2)(b)1. (2003-04) because the term if any limited a judge's obligation to order services. ¶ 23 Second, the Department contends that even if the court interprets and applies Wis. Stat. § 48.355(2)(b)1. (2007-08), the dispositional orders were sufficient under that version of the statute. It argues that the directive in the dispositional orders that the Department provide supervision, services and case management coupled with the services implicitly needed to assist the parents in meeting the conditions for the return of their children enumerate the specific services to be provided to Tanya, William and their children. [9] ¶ 24 Third, the Department argues that the parents forfeited their right to object to the sufficiency of the dispositional orders due to their failure to object in the nearly four years since the orders were entered.