Opinion ID: 2214324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Department's Burden of Proof

Text: ¶ 49 A jury's verdict must be sustained if there is any credible evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, to support it. State v. DeLain, 2005 WI 52, ¶ 11, 280 Wis.2d 51, 695 N.W.2d 484. Although we apply the standard set out in DeLain, we are mindful that terminations of parental rights are among the most severe forms of state action, involving as they do `the awesome authority of the State to destroy permanently all legal recognition of the parental relationship.' Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, ¶ 20, 246 Wis.2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768 (quoting M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 128, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996)). At stake for the parents is the permanent severance of all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations existing between parent and child. Wis. Stat. § 48.40(2). ¶ 50 Due to the severe nature of terminations of parental rights, termination proceedings require heightened legal safeguards against erroneous decisions. Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 21, 629 N.W.2d 768. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process [12] requires that the State support its allegations by ... clear and convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); accord Oneida County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, ¶ 10, 299 Wis.2d 637, 728 N.W.2d 652 (When a fundamental liberty interest is at issue, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that proof of parental unfitness be shown by clear and convincing evidence.). ¶ 51 Wisconsin's Children's Code, Wis. Stat. ch. 48, reflects this constitutional concern. Oneida County, 299 Wis.2d 637, ¶ 11, 728 N.W.2d 652. When parents contest termination of their parental rights, the termination proceeding involves a two-step procedurea factual finding of grounds for termination and a legal conclusion that termination is in the best interests of the child. Id.; see also Wis. Stat. § 48.422; Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.2d 1, ¶¶ 22-23, 629 N.W.2d 768. ¶ 52 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(2) sets out continuing need of protection and services as grounds for an involuntary termination of parental rights. That is the grounds relied upon here. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.31(1), [a]t the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner must prove the allegations supporting grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Oneida County, 299 Wis.2d 637, ¶ 12, 728 N.W.2d 652 (internal quotations and brackets omitted). While the legislative objective of the Children's Code is to promote the best interests of the child, [13] the parent's rights are a court's central focus during the grounds phase.... Id. If the petitioner meets this evidentiary burden, the court shall find the parent unfit and advance to the second step of the termination procedure. Wis. Stat. § 48.424(4). ¶ 53 During the second step of the termination procedure, the dispositional phase, the court determines whether the best interests of the child are served by the termination of the parent's rights. Oneida County, 299 Wis.2d 637, ¶ 13, 728 N.W.2d 652 (citing Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 23, 629 N.W.2d 768; Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶ 27, 271 Wis.2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856); Wis. Stat. § 48.426(2). If after the dispositional phase the court finds that the evidence warrants the termination of parental rights, [t]he court may enter an order terminating the parental rights of one or both parents. Wis. Stat. § 48.427(3). ¶ 54 In this case, the parents allege that the circuit court erred during the fact-finding phase in affirming the jury's verdicts and finding the parents unfit. They assert this was error because the Department failed to meet its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the Department ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court because there were no services ordered by the court in the dispositional orders. We disagree. ¶ 55 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(2) sets forth the requisite showing for a termination of parental rights on the grounds that a child is deemed in need of protection or services. The four special verdict questions presented to the jury track the requisite showing of § 48.415(2). ¶ 56 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)2.b. requires a showing [t]hat the agency responsible for the care of the child and the family ... has made a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court. Similarly, special verdict Question 2 asked the jury whether the Department ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court? Pursuant to § 48.415(2)(a)2.a., the court further instructed the jury that: [r]easonable effort means an earnest and conscientious effort to take good faith steps to provide those services, taking into consideration the characteristics of the parent or child, the level of cooperation of the parent, and other relevant circumstances of the case. You may find the agency's effort was reasonable even though there were minor or insignificant deviations from the court's order. ¶ 57 The parents base their argument that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof solely on the assumption that the dispositional orders failed to order any services. [14] However, in this decision, we previously concluded that the dispositional orders did in fact contain court ordered services. See supra Part II.B. ¶ 58 We continue our discussion to demonstrate that the record is replete with credible evidence presented at trial that supports the jury's finding that the Department ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court. ¶ 59 The Department was to provide the parents with an alcohol and other drug assessment and treatment. The Department's Division of Outpatient Services performed an alcohol and drug assessment for Tanya. The Department did not directly administer William's assessment; instead, because he was incarcerated, the Department of Corrections performed William's assessment. ¶ 60 In February 2004, Ralph Radey, a certified alcohol and drug counselor employed by the Department's Division of Outpatient Services, agreed to provide Tanya with relapse prevention therapy. She attended eight sessions and then dropped out of treatment. Mr. Radey then arranged a morning group that suited her work schedule. Tanya attended two sessions and again dropped out of treatment. Mr. Radey sent Tanya numerous letters encouraging her to reinvolve herself in treatment. Tanya never responded. ¶ 61 As it did with Tanya, the Department offered William alcohol and drug treatment services through its Division of Outpatient Services. William declined those services. ¶ 62 In March 2006, Tanya contacted Mr. Radey again to enroll in relapse prevention therapy and a problem-solving group. Mr. Radey testified that Tanya attended three or four sessions and then dropped out of treatment. ¶ 63 The Department referred both William and Tanya to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous treatment groups, which they both sporadically attended. The Department referred Tanya for outpatient treatment at Libertas of Sheboygan and Aurora Sheboygan Memorial Medical Center. At both treatment centers, Tanya met with a counselor for her initial appointment and then failed to show up for any subsequently scheduled appointments. ¶ 64 Both William and Tanya received extensive alcohol and drug treatment from the Department of Corrections while they were incarcerated. [15] William and Tanya were generally uncooperative with regard to their alcohol and drug treatment. At trial, they both were of the opinion that treatment was a waste of time. William described one of his treatment programs as a joke, and stated that treatment would not affect his ultimate choice [of] whether or not [he] will use drugs. Ms. Mittelstaedt testified that Tanya made it clear to me that treatment does nothing, she only goes because I make her go. She state[d] that ... she is going to use if she wants to use. ¶ 65 The Department was ordered to provide Tanya with a psychosocial evaluation. The Department's Division of Outpatient Services completed the psychosocial evaluation [16] and clinical summary. ¶ 66 The Department was ordered to provide the parents individual or family counseling services. The Department arranged for Tanya and William to see a counselor for couples' counseling sessions. They attended counseling sessions for a couple of months and then stopped attending. Tanya and William did not complete the counseling program. Further, the Department performed a complete family assessment for Tanya, William and their children, which consisted of gathering information to determine treatment goals for the family. ¶ 67 The Department was ordered to assist the parents in learning to care for and control their children and in understanding their children's needs. In its attempt to do so, the Department referred Tanya and William to a parenting program offered by the Children's Service Society and instructed them on how to enroll. Neither Tanya nor William completed the parenting program. The Department provided Elijah with counseling services from a psychologist and psychiatrist for his behavioral issues. The Department encouraged Tanya to participate in Elijah's counseling sessions so she could better understand Elijah's needs. Tanya declined to participate. At countless meetings, Ms. Mittelstaedt discussed with William and Tanya how to better parent their children. ¶ 68 The Department was ordered to assist the parents in providing their children a safe, suitable, and stable home. In this regard, the Department petitioned the court to change the children's placement to Connie's home when, due to William and Tanya's drug use and extended incarceration, it became clear that they could not provide a safe home for the children. The Department assisted Connie by providing parenting mentors that would come to her house during the week and help with the children; helping her enroll in a parenting class; and helping her obtain daycare and weekend respite care for the children. The Department also helped Connie obtain financial assistance while she cared for the children. Connie received a monthly subsidy from Kinship, a program administered by the Department, which is available for grandparents who have grandchildren placed with them. ¶ 69 In attempts to provide Elijah with a stable home, several times the Department formally changed Elijah's placement. On July 22, 2005, Elijah left Connie's home, and the Department placed him with his maternal aunt, Christie. The Department assisted Christie in obtaining low-income housing for her and Elijah and financial assistance. Because Christie was suffering from self-mutilation, the Department transferred Elijah to a temporary receiving home so the Department could assess where he should be placed next. Then, on March 24, 2006, Elijah returned to Connie's home. Elijah continued to exhibit behavioral problems while at Connie's; therefore, on December 14, 2007, the Department provided Elijah with foster care services. ¶ 70 The Department was ordered to assist the parents in establishing and maintaining an appropriate residence for their children. Several times Ms. Mittelstaedt offered to help Tanya move into the Bridgeway House, a shelter for homeless women and their children, which assists mothers in getting back on their feet and in parenting their children. Tanya was very negative about the Bridgeway House and refused to move there. In February 2006, when Tanya was released from prison, the Department helped Tanya obtain affordable housing and helped her furnish her apartment with beds for the children, a kitchen table and a couch. The Department encouraged William to obtain his own apartment, but he maintained a transient lifestyle living temporarily with friends, Tanya and Connie. ¶ 71 The Department was ordered to assist the parents in obtaining appropriate child care in their absence. As stated, the Department petitioned to change the children's placement to Connie's home when William and Tanya were both incarcerated. ¶ 72 The Department was ordered to assist William and Tanya in obtaining and maintaining full-time employment for a minimum of six months. William refused the Department's offer to help him obtain employment from a full-time employment agency. William explained that he preferred the quick money he obtained through the agencies that provided temporary employment. William's temporary jobs never lasted more than four or five months. Additionally, the Department encouraged Tanya to obtain full-time employment, which she often did. However, her frequent incarceration, both of her subsequent pregnancies and drug use prevented her from maintaining full-time employment. ¶ 73 Finally, the Department was ordered to provide the parents a social worker who provided them with case management services. The worker was ordered to keep in touch with the parents, be available to the parents and set up appointments to meet with the parents. The Department assigned Martha Mittelstaedt as William and Tanya's social worker. Ms. Mittelstaedt scheduled monthly home visits with William and Tanya, which she increased to weekly visits in May 2007. She also scheduled additional office visits and meetings upon their request. Over the course of the entire proceeding, Ms. Mittelstaedt scheduled more than 70 meetings with William and/or Tanya, including visits at the prison or jail. Ms. Mittelstaedt had approximately 85 phone conversations with the parents. In addition to her contact with William and Tanya, Ms. Mittelstaedt had more than 400 phone conversations and approximately 130 meetings with other individuals involved in this case. These meetings and conversations were with Connie, Christie, the children and various service providers, including counselors, teachers, relatives, probation and parole officers and doctors. ¶ 74 A relevant consideration in determining reasonable effort to provide services is the parents' level of cooperation. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)2.a. William and Tanya frequently rejected services offered by the Department and were especially uncooperative with respect to their drug and alcohol treatment. This is evidenced by the fact that William and Tanya used drugs throughout these proceedings. The following are specific examples of William and Tanya's drug use. ¶ 75 On July 19, 2004, William hit a park bench, driving while intoxicated. William was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. ¶ 76 On September 10, 2004, Tanya overdosed on heroin. William, Elijah, Emily and Irie were present during her overdose. The police later discovered that William had concealed in his pants the evidence of Tanya's drug use. Tanya and William were both convicted of felony possession of narcotics. Tanya was sentenced to 14 months in prison and 11 months of extended supervision. William, who was on probation for burglary, was sentenced to five years in prison. William was released on parole on July 11, 2006. In April 2006, before William was released, Tanya's probation was revoked after she tested positive for illegal drugs. Tanya remained in jail until August 16, 2006, when she was transferred to Taycheedah Correctional Institute for drug and alcohol treatment. ¶ 77 On March 27, 2006, Tanya tested positive for cocaine. As a result, Tanya was arrested by her probation agent on April 7, 2006, and remained in jail until August 2006. On April 23, 2007, William submitted someone else's urine to his social worker for a drug test. William fled, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. ¶ 78 On May 10, 2007, Tanya again overdosed on heroin while she was with William and her five-month-old son, Shannon. [17] Tanya was placed in jail on a probation hold after this incident and remained there until May 23, 2007. William was also arrested on an outstanding arrest warrant. ¶ 79 On August 25, 2007, William was intoxicated and got into a fight with Tanya's then boyfriend. William was convicted of disorderly conduct and was sentenced to six months in jail. As an alternative to revocation, he spent three months in an alcohol and drug halfway house in Waukesha, Wisconsin. ¶ 80 Tanya's social worker testified that she disappeared from the beginning of November 2007 to December 19, 2007, when she was arrested and jailed on a probation hold. At the time of trial, Tanya was still incarcerated. ¶ 81 Determining reasonable effort also takes into account other relevant circumstances of the case. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a)2.a. One such relevant circumstance was William and Tanya's unavailability due to frequent incarceration. Ms. Mittelstaedt confirmed that the Department considered this in stating that services were contingent upon if [William and Tanya] were incarcerated and if they weren't available for services because of their incarceration. The foregoing incidents of William and Tanya's drug abuse also demonstrate how frequently they were incarcerated. ¶ 82 Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the jury's verdict that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that it ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court.