48.415 Grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights. At the fact-finding hearing the court or jury shall determine whether grounds exist for the termination of parental rights. If the child is an Indian child, the court or jury shall also determine at the fact-finding hearing whether continued custody of the Indian child by the Indian child's parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child under s. 48.028 (4) (e) 1. and whether active efforts under s. 48.028 (4) (e) 2. have been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian child's family and whether those efforts have proved unsuccessful, unless partial summary judgment on the grounds for termination of parental rights is granted, in which case the court shall make those determinations at the dispositional hearing. Grounds for termination of parental rights shall be one of the following:

(1) Abandonment.

(a) Abandonment, which, subject to par. (c), shall be established by proving any of the following:

1. That the child has been left without provision for the child's care or support, the petitioner has investigated the circumstances surrounding the matter and for 60 days the petitioner has been unable to find either parent.

1m. That the child has been left by the parent without provision for the child's care or support in a place or manner that exposes the child to substantial risk of great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

1r. That a court of competent jurisdiction has found under s. 48.13 (2) or under a law of any other state or a federal law that is comparable to s. 48.13 (2) that the child was abandoned when the child was under one year of age or has found that the parent abandoned the child when the child was under one year of age in violation of s. 948.20 or in violation of the law of any other state or federal law, if that violation would be a violation of s. 948.20 if committed in this state.

2. That 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) or 938.356 (2) and the parent has failed to visit or communicate with the child for a period of 3 months or longer.

3. The child has been left by the parent with any person, the parent knows or could discover the whereabouts of the child and the parent has failed to visit or communicate with the child for a period of 6 months or longer.

(b) Incidental contact between parent and child shall not preclude the court from finding that the parent has failed to visit or communicate with the child under par. (a) 2. or 3. The time periods under par. (a) 2. or 3. shall not include any periods during which the parent has been prohibited by judicial order from visiting or communicating with the child.

(c) Abandonment is not established under par. (a) 2. or 3. if the parent proves all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That the parent had good cause for having failed to visit with the child throughout the time period specified in par. (a) 2. or 3., whichever is applicable.

2. That the parent had good cause for having failed to communicate with the child throughout the time period specified in par. (a) 2. or 3., whichever is applicable.

3. If the parent proves good cause under subd. 2., including good cause based on evidence that the child's age or condition would have rendered any communication with the child meaningless, that one of the following occurred:

a. The parent communicated about the child with the person or persons who had physical custody of the child during the time period specified in par. (a) 2. or 3., whichever is applicable, or, if par. (a) 2. is applicable, with the agency responsible for the care of the child during the time period specified in par. (a) 2.

b. The parent had good cause for having failed to communicate about the child with the person or persons who had physical custody of the child or the agency responsible for the care of the child throughout the time period specified in par. (a) 2. or 3., whichever is applicable.

(1m) Relinquishment. Relinquishment, which shall be established by proving that a court of competent jurisdiction has found under s. 48.13 (2m) that the parent has relinquished custody of the child under s. 48.195 (1) when the child was 72 hours old or younger.

(2) Continuing need of protection or services. Continuing need of protection or services, which shall be established by proving any of the following:

(a)

1. That the child has been adjudged to be a child or an unborn child 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 under s. 48.345, 48.347, 48.357, 48.363, 48.365, 938.345, 938.357, 938.363 or 938.365 containing the notice required by s. 48.356 (2) or 938.356 (2).

2.

a. In this subdivision, “ reasonable effort" means an earnest and conscientious effort to take good faith steps to provide the services ordered by the court which takes into consideration the characteristics of the parent or child or of the expectant mother or child, the level of cooperation of the parent or expectant mother and other relevant circumstances of the case.

b. That the agency responsible for the care of the child and the family or of the unborn child and expectant mother has made a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court.

3. That the child has been placed outside the home for a cumulative total period of 6 months or longer pursuant to an order listed under subd. 1., not including time spent outside the home as an unborn child; that the parent has failed to meet the conditions established for the safe return of the child to the home; and, if the child has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months, that there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not meet these conditions as of the date on which the child will have been placed outside the home for 15 of the most recent 22 months, not including any period during which the child was a runaway from the out-of-home placement or was residing in a trial reunification home.

(am)

1. That on 3 or more occasions the child has been adjudicated to be in need of protection or services under s. 48.13 (3), (3m), (10) or (10m) and, in connection with each of those adjudications, has been placed outside his or her home pursuant to a court order under s. 48.345 containing the notice required by s. 48.356 (2).

2. That the conditions that led to the child's placement outside his or her home under each order specified in subd. 1. were caused by the parent.

(3) Continuing parental disability. Continuing parental disability, which shall be established by proving that:

(a) The parent is presently, and for a cumulative total period of at least 2 years within the 5 years immediately prior to the filing of the petition has been, an inpatient at one or more hospitals as defined in s. 50.33 (2) (a), (b) or (c), licensed treatment facilities as defined in s. 51.01 (2) or state treatment facilities as defined in s. 51.01 (15) on account of mental illness as defined in s. 51.01 (13) (a) or (b), developmental disability as defined in s. 55.01 (2), or other like incapacities, as defined in s. 55.01 (5);

(b) The condition of the parent is likely to continue indefinitely; and

(c) The child is not being provided with adequate care by a relative who has legal custody of the child, or by a parent or a guardian.

(4) Continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation. 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 court has not subsequently modified its order so as to permit periods of physical placement or visitation.

(5) Child abuse. Child abuse, which shall be established by proving that the parent has exhibited a pattern of physically or sexually abusive behavior which is a substantial threat to the health of the child who is the subject of the petition and proving either of the following:

(a) That the parent has caused death or injury to a child or children resulting in a felony conviction.

(b) That a child has previously been removed from the parent's home pursuant to a court order under s. 48.345 after an adjudication that the child is in need of protection or services under s. 48.13 (3) or (3m).

(6) Failure to assume parental responsibility.

(a) Failure to assume parental responsibility, which shall be established by proving that the parent or the person or persons who may be the parent of the child have not had a substantial parental relationship with the child.

(b) In this subsection, “ substantial parental relationship" means the acceptance and exercise of significant responsibility for the daily supervision, education, protection and care of the child. In evaluating whether the person has had a substantial parental relationship with the child, the court may consider such factors, including, but not limited to, whether the person has expressed concern for or interest in the support, care or well-being of the child, whether the person has neglected or refused to provide care or support for the child and whether, with respect to a person who is or may be the father of the child, the person has expressed concern for or interest in the support, care or well-being of the mother during her pregnancy.

(7) Incestuous parenthood. Incestuous parenthood, which shall be established by proving that the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated is also related, either by blood or adoption, to the child's other parent in a degree of kinship closer than 2nd cousin.

(8) Homicide or solicitation to commit homicide of parent. Homicide or solicitation to commit homicide of a parent, which shall be established by proving that a parent of the child has been a victim of first-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.01, first-degree reckless homicide in violation of s. 940.02 or 2nd-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.05 or a crime under federal law or the law of any other state that is comparable to any of those crimes, or has been the intended victim of a solicitation to commit first-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 939.30 or a crime under federal law or the law of any other state that is comparable to that crime, and that the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated has been convicted of that intentional or reckless homicide, solicitation or crime under federal law or the law of any other state as evidenced by a final judgment of conviction.

(9) Parenthood as a result of sexual assault.

(a) Parenthood as a result of sexual assault, which shall be established by proving that the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault in violation of s. 940.225 (1), (2) or (3), 948.02 (1) or (2), 948.025, or 948.085. Conception as a result of sexual assault as specified in this paragraph may be proved by a final judgment of conviction or other evidence produced at a fact-finding hearing under s. 48.424 indicating that the person who may be the father of the child committed, during a possible time of conception, a sexual assault as specified in this paragraph against the mother of the child.

(b) If the conviction or other evidence specified in par. (a) indicates that the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault in violation of s. 948.02 (1) or (2) or 948.085, the mother of the child may be heard on her desire for the termination of the father's parental rights.

(9m) Commission of a felony against a child.

(a) Commission of a serious felony against one of the person's children, which shall be established by proving that a child of the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated was the victim of a serious felony and that the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated has been convicted of that serious felony as evidenced by a final judgment of conviction.

(am) Commission of a violation of s. 948.051 involving any child or a violation of the law of any other state or federal law, if that violation would be a violation of s. 948.051 involving any child if committed in this state.

(b) In this subsection, “ serious felony" means any of the following:

1. The commission of, the aiding or abetting of, or the solicitation, conspiracy or attempt to commit, a violation of s. 940.01, 940.02, 940.03 or 940.05 or a violation of the law of any other state or federal law, if that violation would be a violation of s. 940.01, 940.02, 940.03 or 940.05 if committed in this state.

2.

a. The commission of a violation of s. 940.19 (3), 1999 stats., a violation of s. 940.19 (2), (4) or (5), 940.225 (1) or (2), 948.02 (1) or (2), 948.025, 948.03 (2) (a), (3) (a), or (5) (a) 1., 2., or 3., 948.05, 948.051, 948.06, 948.08, or 948.081, or a violation of s. 940.302 (2) if s. 940.302 (2) (a) 1. b. applies.

b. A violation of the law of any other state or federal law, if that violation would be a violation listed under subd. 2. a. if committed in this state.

3. The commission of a violation of s. 948.21 or a violation of the law of any other state or federal law, if that violation would be a violation of s. 948.21 if committed in this state, that resulted in the death of the victim.

(10) Prior involuntary termination of parental rights to another child. Prior involuntary termination of parental rights to another child, which shall be established by proving all of the following:

(a) That the child who is the subject of the petition has been adjudged to be in need of protection or services under s. 48.13 (2), (3) or (10); or that the child who is the subject of the petition was born after the filing of a petition under this subsection whose subject is a sibling of the child.

(b) That, within 3 years prior to the date the court adjudged the child to be in need of protection or services as specified in par. (a) or, in the case of a child born after the filing of a petition as specified in par. (a), within 3 years prior to the date of birth of the child, a court has ordered the termination of parental rights with respect to another child of the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated on one or more of the grounds specified in this section.

History: 1979 c. 330; 1983 a. 189 s. 329 (5); 1983 a. 326; 1983 a. 447 ss. 8, 67; 1983 a. 488, 538; 1987 a. 355, 383; 1989 a. 86; 1993 a. 235, 395; 1995 a. 77, 108, 225, 275; 1997 a. 35, 80, 237, 292, 294; 1999 a. 9, 32; 2001 a. 2, 109; 2005 a. 277, 293; 2007 a. 45, 116; 2009 a. 94; 2011 a. 257 s. 56; 2011 a. 271; 2015 a. 366; 2017 a. 128, 256.

A termination order was not supported by sufficient findings when the findings merely repeated statutory language and made no determination of the best interests of the child. Termination of Parental Rights to T. R. M. 100 Wis. 2d 681, 303 N.W.2d 581 (1981).

A parent has constitutionally protected rights to the care, custody, and management of a child. In Interest of J. L. W. 102 Wis. 2d 118, 306 N.W.2d 46 (1981).

The dismissal of termination proceedings on grounds of abandonment because only 2 of 6 dispositional orders contained statutory warnings was inappropriate. The warning is only required in one order. In Interest of K.K. 162 Wis. 2d 431, 469 N.W.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1991).

The abandonment period under sub. (1) (a) 3. need not immediately precede filing of the petition. If abandonment is found, termination is still discretionary. In Interest of T.P.S. 168 Wis. 2d 259, 483 N.W.2d 591 (Ct. App. 1992).

While the CHIPS judge must notify the parents of possible termination grounds in the written dispositional order and repeat that information orally to any parent present in court, proof that the oral notice was given is not required in later termination proceedings under sub. (2) (a). In Interest of D.P. 170 Wis. 2d 313, 488 N.W.2d 133 (Ct. App. 1992).

A developmentally disabled father's allegation that the county, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, did not take into account his disability in attempting to provide court ordered services was not a basis to attack a termination proceeding. The ADA did not place an added burden on the county to meet the requirements of sub. (2) (b) [now sub. (2) (a) 2.]. In Interest of Torrence P. 187 Wis. 2d 10, 522 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1994).

A child “left with" another person under sub. (1) (a) 3. may have been actively placed with the other person by the parent or allowed to live with the other person with the parent's knowledge. Interest of Christopher D. 191 Wis. 2d 681, 530 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1995).

“Disassociated" under sub. (1) (c) is not unconstitutionally vague. Disassociation means more than “failure to visit or communicate" under sub. (1) (a). Interest of Christopher D. 191 Wis. 2d 681, 530 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1995).

The respondent in a TPR case has the right to meaningfully participate; whether physical presence is required must be determined on a case by case basis. Telephone participation may be adequate. Interest of Christopher D. 191 Wis. 2d 681, 530 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1995).

A showing of abandonment under sub. (1) (a) 3. creates a rebuttable presumption that imposes on the parent the burden of disproving abandonment under sub. (1) (c) by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent has not disassociated himself or herself from the child. Odd S.-G v. Carolyn S.-G, 194 Wis. 2d 366, 533 N.W.2d 794 (1995).

Termination under sub. (8), due to a murder occurring prior to the adoption of sub. (8), did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws and did not violate due process, equal protection, or double jeopardy protections. Winnebago County DSS v. Darrell A. 194 Wis. 2d 628, 534 N.W.2d 907 (Ct. App. 1995).

It was a denial of due process to terminate parental rights on grounds substantially different from those that the parent was warned of under s. 48.356. State v. Patricia A.P. 195 Wis. 2d 855, 537 N.W.2d 47 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-1164.

Sub. (5) does not require an assessment of present and future behavior. The statute refers to past behavior that was a threat to the child's welfare. Jerry M. v. Dennis L. M. 198 Wis. 2d 10, 542 N.W.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0075.

For all terminations under sub. (5), there must be a showing that the parent has exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior and a showing under par. (a) or (b). A “conviction" under par. (a) is a conviction after the appeal as of right has been exhausted. Monroe County v. Jennifer V. 200 Wis. 2d 678, 548 N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3062.

Sub. (7) is a constitutional part of a statutory scheme that is narrowly tailored to meet the state's compelling interests. State v. Allen M. 214 Wis. 2d 302, 571 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0852.

Venue becomes an issue only in the event that it is contested. The county where a child “resides" is the county of domicile. The county where a child “is present" is the county where the child is present at the time a petition is filed. State v. Corey J. G. 215 Wis. 2d 395, 572 N.W.2d 845 (1998), 96-3148.

When a parent is prohibited from visitation, communication by phone and letter is not prohibited, and sub. (1) (b) does not apply. Periods in which there has been no contact whatsoever will be counted under sub. (1) (a) 2. and 3. Carla B. v. Timothy N. 228 Wis. 2d 695, 598 N.W.2d 924 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0853.

The rules of civil procedure apply to termination of parental rights proceedings. Directed verdicts are permissible. Door County DHFS v. Scott S. 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0719.

A guardian ad litem's comments regarding the best interests of the child were not improper. Only when the jury is instructed that it should consider the best interests of the child is there reversible error. Door County DHFS v. Scott S. 230 Wis. 2d 460, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0719.

Prior to determining that grounds existed to terminate parental rights, the circuit court had the duty at the fact-finding hearing to find by clear and convincing evidence that all of the elements of s. 48.415 (1) (a) 3. had been satisfied. By entering a default judgment against the mother on the issue of abandonment without first taking evidence, the circuit court did not make the finding. The error was subject to a harmless error analysis. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S. 2001 WI 110, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768, 00-1739.

In a case under sub. (4), a parent's right to meaningfully participate in the termination proceeding includes the right to present evidence at the fact-finding hearing regarding efforts to meet the conditions for reestablishing visitation. It was error to restrict evidence to whether an order denying visitation had remained in effect for a year. State v. Frederick H. 2001 WI App 141, 246 Wis. 2d 215, 630 N.W.2d 734, 00-3035.

Events occurring prior to a CHIPS dispositional order are frequently relevant at a termination proceeding. A history of parental conduct may be relevant to predicting a parent's chances of complying with conditions in the future, despite failing to do so to date. La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Tara P. 2002 WI App 84, 252 Wis. 2d 179, 643 N.W.2d 194, 01-3034.

In determining whether “there is a substantial likelihood" that a parent will not meet conditions for the return of his or her children, a parent's relevant character traits and patterns of behavior and the likelihood that any problematic traits or propensities have been or can be modified in order to assure the safety of the children must be considered. La Crosse County Department of Human Services v. Tara P. 2002 WI App 84, 252 Wis. 2d 179, 643 N.W.2d 194, 01-3034.

A mother's criminal offenses and sentences were relevant to whether she had failed to establish a substantial parental relationship with her children under sub. (6). State v. Quinsanna D. 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, 02-1919.

Partial summary judgment may be granted in the unfitness phase of a termination case if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the asserted grounds for unfitness, and, taking into consideration the heightened burden of proof specified in s. 48.31 (1) and required by due process, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Steven V. v. Kelley H. 2004 WI 47, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 831, 02-2860.

As applied in this case the incestuous parenthood ground under sub. (7) is not narrowly tailored to advance the compelling state interest underlying the statute. It is fundamentally unfair to terminate parental rights based solely on a parent's status as a victim of incest. Monroe County DHS v. Kelli B. 2004 WI 48, 271 Wis. 2d 51, 678 N.W.2d 856, 03-0060.

Jennifer V.'s holding is limited to appeals based on guilt or innocence. When a parent's pending appeal does not raise issues of guilt or innocence, “final judgment of conviction" in sub. (9m) means the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court, either after a verdict of guilty by the jury, a finding of guilty by the court when a jury is waived, or a plea of guilty or no contest. Reynaldo F. v. Christal M. 2004 WI App 106, 272 Wis. 2d 816, 684 N.W.2d 138, 03-2687.

A parent's prior convictions are not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value when the information would lead the jury to an understanding of why children are removed from the parent's home. Reynaldo F. v. Christal M. 2004 WI App 106, 272 Wis. 2d 707, 684 N.W.2d 138, 03-2687.

Sub. (4) does not violate substantive due process by not requiring any evidence of parental unfitness. There are required steps that must be taken before reaching the application of sub. (4) in a TPR case and those steps form the foundation for the ultimate finding. At each of these steps, findings must be made that reflect on the parent's fitness. Dane County Department of Human Services v. P. P. 2005 WI 32, 279 Wis. 2d 169, 694 N.W.2d 344, 03-2440.

The biological father of a nonmarital child satisfies the definition of parent in s. 48.02 (13), as he is a biological parent notwithstanding that he has not officially been adjudicated as the child's biological father, and may have his parental rights terminated based on periods of abandonment that occurred prior to his official adjudication as the child's biological father. State v. James P. 2005 WI 80, 281 Wis. 2d 685, 698 N.W.2d 95, 04-0723.

The notice requirement provision of sub. (4) (a) are a part of the clause pertaining to juvenile court orders, and are inapplicable to the clause pertaining to family court orders. The fact that s. 767.24 (4) (d) [now s. 767.41 (4) (d)] requires a family court to provide the applicable notice does not establish that provision of the notice is an element of proof under sub. (4). Kimberly S. S. v. Sebastian X. L. 2005 WI App 83, 281 Wis. 2d 261, 697 N.W.2d 476, 04-3220.

When a parent is incarcerated and the only ground for parental termination is that the child continues to be in need of protection or services solely because of the parent's incarceration, sub. (2) requires that the court-ordered conditions of return are tailored to the particular needs of the parent and child. A parent's incarceration is not a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights. Other factors must be considered, such as the parent's relationship with the child both prior to and while the parent is incarcerated, the nature of the crime committed, the length and type of sentence imposed, the parent's level of cooperation with the responsible agency and the department of corrections, and the best interests of the child. Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Jodie W. 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, 05-0002.

Sub. (10) (b) requires that within the 3 years prior a court has terminated the parent's rights to another child in an involuntary termination proceeding, but does not require proof of which of the available 12 grounds set out in this section was the basis for the involuntary termination. Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Nicole W. 2007 WI 30, 299 Wis. 2d 637, 728 N.W.2d 652, 05-2656.

In determining whether a party seeking termination of parental rights has proven by clear and convincing evidence that a biological father has failed to assume parental responsibility under sub. (6), a circuit court must consider the biological father's efforts undertaken after he discovers that he is the father but before the circuit court adjudicates the grounds of the termination proceeding. State v. Bobby G. 2007 WI 77, 301 Wis. 2d 531, 734 N.W.2d 81, 06-0066.

The 3-month abandonment ground under sub. (1) (a) 2. is effectively an exception to the more general requirement of 6 months of abandonment under sub. (1) (a) 3. The 3-month provision is a special scenario justifying a shorter abandonment period. When there is an active CHIPS order, it is a given that the child has been facing some kind of peril, and a shorter abandonment period is therefore appropriate and in the child's best interests. When a CHIPS order has been terminated or allowed to lapse, it is reasonable to assume that the parental situation has changed and the reason for the shorter abandonment period is no longer present. Heather B. v. Jennifer B. 2011 WI App 26, 331 Wis. 2d 666, 794 N.W.2d 800, 10-2528.

Sub. (1) (a) 2. requires that the 3-month abandonment period fall within the duration of a CHIPS-based placement of the child outside the parent's home. Heather B. v. Jennifer B. 2011 WI App 26, 331 Wis. 2d 666, 794 N.W.2d 800, 10-2528.

Under sub. (6) (a), a fact-finder must look to the totality-of-the-circumstances to determine if a parent has assumed parental responsibility. The phrase “have not had," does not direct the fact-finder to consider only a limited time period. Rather, the statute gives latitude to the fact-finder to consider the entirety of the child's life and determine if the parent's actions have been sufficient to find that he or she has assumed parental responsibility. Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, a fact-finder may consider whether, during the time the parent was caring for his or her child, the parent exposed the child to a hazardous living environment. Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T. 2011 WI 30, 333 Wis. 2d 273, 797 N.W.2d 854, 09-2973.

Even though there is no restraint of the petitioner's liberty, the writ of habeas corpus may be used in the court of appeals to seek relief from a termination of parental rights (TPR) when appellate counsel fails to appeal before the deadline. Under s. 809.82 (2) (b), the time for filing an appeal of a TPR may not be enlarged when the petition is filed by someone other than a representative of the public. If the court is not able to recognize the petitioner's right to raise ineffectiveness of counsel, the petitioner will never have an appeal through no fault of his or her own. Amy W. v. David G., 2013 WI App 83, 348 Wis. 2d 593, 834 N.W.2d 432, 13-0731.

Subsection (2) (a) 1. makes the written notice in s. 48.356 (2), the CHIPS statute, an element to prove in a TPR case grounded in continuing CHIPS. The plain language of sub. (2) (a) 1. provides that the statutory notice requirements are satisfied when at least one of the CHIPS orders contains the written notice required under s. 48.356 (2). Sub. (2) (a) does not require that notice be given in every CHIPS order, and it does not require that notice be in the last CHIPS order. St. Croix County Department of Health and Human Services v. Michael D. 2016 WI 35, 368 Wis. 2d 170, 880 N.W.2d 107, 14-2431.

The agency does not need to wait 6 months after the last out-of-home placement order is issued before filing a TPR petition under sub. (2) (a). Subsection (2) (a) 3. does not require that the 6-month period must be after the last CHIPS dispositional order or extension; rather, the 6-month period is a cumulative total period under the CHIPS orders. St. Croix County Department of Health and Human Services v. Michael D. 2016 WI 35, 368 Wis. 2d 170, 880 N.W.2d 107, 14-2431.

Denying a defendant the opportunity to present his case-in-chief in a termination of parental rights proceeding is a structural error, the consequence of which is an automatic new trial. State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, 385 Wis. 2d 418, 922 N.W.2d 807, 17-1413.

Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state-initiated parental rights termination proceeding. A 3-factor test is discussed. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

Adoption and termination proceedings in Wisconsin: Straining the wisdom of Solomon. Hayes and Morse, 66 MLR 439 (1983).