Court Opinion

ID: 9710713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:16:02.840382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:59.347168
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.

(dissenting).

¶ 79. The majority concludes that the record supports a finding that PP is an unfit parent. PP may actually be an unfit parent, but what he has not had is an individualized judicial determination that he is an unfit parent. Under this statutory scheme, not only is such a deter*206mination unnecessary, EE is now precluded from having a determination on that very issue. While this state has a compelling interest to protect children from unfit parents, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Accordingly, I dissent.
I
¶ 80. On August 12, the County filed a petition to terminate EE's parental rights, alleging abandonment, see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1), the children were in continuing need of protection or services, see § 48.415(2), and failure to assume parental responsibility, see § 48.415(6). EE first appeared in court on September 6, 2002, for an initial hearing on the TER petition, but because he does not speak or understand English, and because an interpreter did not appear, the court continued the hearing for cause. EE did not attend the continued initial hearing on October 2, given his incarceration in Dodge County1 and a failure to provide sufficient time to arrange for him to appear by telephone. The court again continued the hearing for cause.
¶ 81. On October 29, EE appeared by telephone with an interpreter. EE indicated he wanted counsel, and although EE qualified for public defender representation, he had yet to be appointed counsel due to the non-availability of private bar attorneys in the county who accepted TER appointment cases. The court yet again adjourned the cases for cause until December 11. Meanwhile, EE was released from his incarceration on November 12.
*207¶ 82. At the December 11 plea hearing, EE appeared by counsel,2 contested the petition's allegations, and requested a jury trial. The court set a trial date for February 13 and 14, 2003.
¶ 83. On January 27, 2003, however, the County motioned the court to continue the trial date to February 25, asserting:
It is in the interests of judicial economy to set an adjourned date for trial on the basis that trial would be greatly truncated after February 27,2003. On February 27, 2003, one year will have elapsed since the court issued a denial of visitation for each parent which has not subsequently been modified to permit visitation. Such an occurrence will establish an additional ground for termination of parental rights to be pled. Proof to establish the ground of continuing denial of visitation, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4), is almost perfunctory in nature, requiring only proof that the order was issued and a year has elapsed. There is no affirmative defense to this ground. (Emphasis added.)
If the jury finds that the current petition was not proven, I would then file a new petition after 2/27/03, pleading the continuing denial of visitation.
The requested leave to amend requires only approximately 3 weeks and would not adversely impact the interests of the public in the prompt disposition of cases. It will, in fact, enhance the interests of the public in the prompt disposition of cases as well as reduce expenses and time to the public by requiring only one day of trial. (Emphasis added.)
*208At the continued hearing on January 29, EE's counsel advised the court he explained to EE that even if the continuing needs ground could be defeated, the County would file this new continuing denial of visitation ground in less than a month. Counsel indicated EE agreed that it made sense to adjourn the trial to concurrently contest both grounds. The trial court adjourned the trial date for cause and placed the trial date outside the one-year marker to accommodate the State's impending amendment to the petition to include an allegation of continuing denial of visitation. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4).
¶ 84. On March 3, four days after the one-year anniversary of the trial court's order denying EE visitation rights, the County filed an amended petition, which dropped the abandonment charge, retained the allegation that the children were in continuing need of protection and services, and included the "perfunctory" continuing denial of visitation ground. A hearing on the amended petition was continued on March 11, due to the unavailability of an interpreter, and on March 25, again due to the unavailability of an interpreter and because EE had been taken into custody by Immigration and Naturalization Services.
¶ 85. On April 16, EE's attorney denied the amended petition's allegations and requested a jury trial. The court set a trial date for June 4. The County represented it would be proceeding only on the continuing denial of visitation and placement because it was the "swiftest." On June 2, EE pled no contest to the continuing denial of visitation ground. Just over one week later, the court terminated EE's parental rights.
*209H-l
¶ 86. The United States Supreme Court has frequently emphasized the importance of family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). The private interest of a parent in his or her children undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). A parent's fundamental right to the care and custody of his or her child may not be terminated absent a finding the parent is unfit. Id. at 649. The real question presented in this case is whether a parent can have his or her parental rights terminated in the absence of an individualized determination of unfitness through the operation of a statutory scheme that works much like a statutory presumption by the way it defines unfitness.
¶ 87. As EE points out, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) permits a finding of unfitness to be grounded on showing first that a court order denying visitation or physical placement has been issued and, second, that such order has been in effect for at least one year without modification permitting visitation or physical placement.3 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.424(4), however, states that *210if grounds for termination of parental rights are found by a court order or jury, the court shall find the parent unfit.4 Thus, Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) not only permits a finding of unfitness upon showing the elements in the statute, it requires a finding of unfitness. This looks like a mandatory irrebuttable presumption to me.5
¶ 88. The problem with this statutory scheme is that the grounds for denying visitation or placement are not based on the unfitness of the parent, but are instead based upon the best interests of the child. No finding or evidence of unfitness is required for these visitation decisions. This becomes important because there may be reasons the court did not modify the order denying placement and visitation, including serious illness, temporary incarceration or involuntary absence from the jurisdiction, or a judge's illness or death, that have little or nothing to do with the unfitness of a parent. See Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶ 56, ¶¶ 96-97, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856 (Abrahamson, J. concurring) and (Prosser, J. dissenting).
¶ 89. Wisconsin Stat. § 48.13 provides the grounds that need to be established to show that a child is in need of protection or services. Again, the court views these grounds with the focus on the best interest of the child. Assessing parental unfitness is irrelevant. *211Wisconsin Stat. § 48.13(8) and (9)6 may involve issues of a parent's unfitness, but on the other hand they may not.7 The long and the short of it is that a parent may ultimately be found to be unfit even though the parent's reasons for losing visitation and/or placement of one's child has nothing to do with whether that parent is unfit. All that need be shown is that a parent lost placement or visitation and failed to meet the conditions necessary for reinstating that placement or visitation.
¶ 90. Stanley, however, requires an individualized proof of a parent's unfitness "in a particular case." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652. The Court was concerned with the statutory scheme that was based upon a presumption that an unwed parent was an unfit parent. The Court noted that procedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than an individualized determination. Id. at 656-57. But when the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when *212it explicitly disdains-present realities in deference to past formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child. Id. at 657. The Court indicated that while the establishment of prompt efficacious procedures will achieve legitimate state ends as a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional adjudication, the Court also recognized higher values than speed and efficiency. As the Court stated:
Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general, and the Due Process Clause in particular, that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.
Id. at 656.
¶ 91. What is particularly troubling in this case is that EE was scheduled to have his hearing on unfitness based on grounds of abandonment, continuing need of protection or need of services, and failure to assume parental responsibility. Dane County filed those petitions on August 12, 2002. After nearly five months of adjournments, on January 27, 2003, the County moved to continue the trial in order to take advantage of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4), noting that there was "no affirmative defense" to this ground. The County was allowed to circumvent any hearing on the merits of unfitness that were alleged in the August 12, 2002, petitions. As the County conceded, it was much easier and much more convenient, indeed much more efficient, for the County to proceed in this fashion. The County had its ground without having to proceed with any evidence of unfitness that was alleged in the original petition. It no longer had to show abandonment, no longer had to *213show a failure to assume parental responsibility, and no longer had to show continuing need of protection or services. This is the very approach that the Court in Stanley held unconstitutional.8
¶ 92. The ramifications of the majority opinion in this case cannot be understated. A child may be taken away from a parent, in the best interests of the child and for reasons that have nothing to do with the unfitness of that parent. Conditions for return of the child can be ordered by the court, which simply cannot be met for reasons having nothing to do with the unfitness of the parent. At the expiration of one year, a parent may have his or her parental rights terminated absent any particularized showing of unfitness, simply because he or she cannot satisfy the conditions set by the trial court.9 By simply waiting, the County no longer has to establish on a case-by-case basis that each *214parent who is in jeopardy of having his or her parental rights terminated is unfit. The County only needs to allow the statutory time period to run, and then rush in with an amended petition to terminate parental rights. Stanley requires more than efficiency for efficiency's sake. Stanley requires an individualized determination of the unfitness of the parent.
h-1 h-H HH
¶ 93. Access and an opportunity to be heard: These are fundamental principles upon which our judicial system is based. Few rights can be deemed as fundamental as the right to raise one's children. EE has not had access to the courts concerning his fundamental right to parent his children. He has not had an individualized determination of his unfitness as a parent. When his children are removed from him, he is entitled to at least that much. If he is unfit, his parental rights will appropriately be terminated. He has not been afforded the proper determination. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
*215¶ 94. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.

 P.P.'s incarceration for felony child abuse may have affected the decisions on how to proceed below.

 PP was in a halfway house and did not attend court because his probation agent was not given enough notice to arrange for transportation.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.415(4) provides:
Continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation, which shall be established by proving all of the following:
(a) That the parent has been denied periods of physical placement by court order in an action affecting the family or has been denied visitation under an order under s'. 48.345, 48.363, 48.365, 938.345, 938.363 or 938.365 containing the notice required by s. 48.356 (2) or 938.356 (2).
(b) That at least one year has elapsed since the order denying periods of physical placement or visitation was issued and the *210court has not subsequently modified its order so as to permit periods of physical placement or visitation.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.424(4) reads, "If grounds for the termination of parental rights are found by the court or jury, the court shall find the parent unfit. ..."

 Indeed, just last term, this court in Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶ 39, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856, concluded that a continuing denial of visitation can be "conclusively" determined "from certain existing court orders that satisfy the statutory requirements."

 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.13 states as relevant here:
The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court, and:
(8) Who is receiving inadequate care during the period of time a parent is missing, incarcerated, hospitalized or institutionalized;
(9) Who is at least age 12, signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is in need of special treatment or care which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is unwilling, neglecting, unable or needs assistance to provide.

 In State v. Gregory L.S., 2002 WI App 101, ¶ 3, 253 Wis. 2d 563, 643 N.W.2d 890, the court of appeals held that "[w]here there is clear and convincing evidence to support a CHIPS petition, a court can properly enter a CHIPS order. Although one parent may be fit, there are times when the facts support a CHIPS order that can protect the best interests of the child."

 Even more troubling is that one of the conditions set forth in the October 31, 2002, order which revised and extended a prior dispositional order, required that each parent not be incarcerated. Will this now become an independent ground to terminate the rights of parents convicted of felonies with sentences in excess of a year? While the majority is correct that a trial court can modify an order that each parent not be incarcerated for persons convicted of felonies and sentenced to an excess of one year, majority op., ¶ 31 n.ll, there is no requirement for a trial court to grant such a modification.

 The majority suggests that Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) is not facially invalid because there is still an as-applied substantive due process challenge to the statutory scheme so that reasons for failing to modify the order denying visitation or physical placement may be explored, in a proper'case. Majority op., ¶ 25. The majority indicates that had EE chosen to raise a defense to the ground at issue here, he may have put himself in a position to raise an as-applied challenge in this case. Majority op., ¶ 25 n.6.
*214Besides shifting the burden to EE to show that he is a fit parent, the majority also fails to acknowledge that there is no such defense to the ground at issue in this case. One year had elapsed from the order denying physical placement and visitation and he had not satisfied the conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that a large part of the delay was caused by the County, EE simply had no defense to the ground that he had failed to ameliorate the conditions set forth within the time period required, as no such defense can possibly exist once the year has run. Saying that one can raise a defense when no such defense can possibly exist is an exercise in futility. Moreover, it is unreasonable to suggest that his acknowledgement that no such defense can exist should be construed as waiver in light of his initial request for a jury trial and his immediate appeal of the trial court's order terminating his parental rights.