Court must consider "best interest of child".

• Author: Anderson, Tony

Byline: Tony Anderson

The state Supreme Court took steps last week to resolve some confusion about the standards to apply during the termination of a parent's rights.

The confusion arose from an apparent disparity between some of the language in a 1991 Supreme Court decision and legislative changes to TPR procedures that took effect a few years earlier. The question related to the proper standard for circuit courts to apply once a parent was found unfit.

In its unanimous decision, In re the termination of parental rights to Prestin T.B., Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Julie A.B., the Supreme Court clearly stated that "the best interest of the child" is the overriding consideration during the dispositional hearing in the TPR process.

Justice David T. Prosser Jr. wrote, "The 'best interest of the child' represents a consistent legislative objective throughout the Children's Code. Wisconsin Stat. A§ 48.01 (1) provides in part: 'In construing this chapter, the best interests of the child ... shall always be of paramount consideration.'"

TPR Petition

The case arose from a petition to terminate the parental rights of Julie A.B. and James T. to their son, Prestin T.B., who was born April 11, 1998. By the time Prestin was seven months old, the Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services began receiving referrals alleging neglect by Julie. The department was unsuccessful with attempts to follow up until Prestin was 21 months old.

At that point, a department social worker found Julie and Prestin living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. They also determined that Julie had a drinking problem, which she admitted to.

The Sheboygan County Circuit Court placed Prestin in foster care on April 14, 2000, in response to a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) petition. Judge John B. Murphy ordered Julie to undergo alcohol and other drug abuse assessment, submit to a psychological evaluation, engage in follow up treatment, meet regularly with Prestin, find employment, and find a suitable place to live. Both Julie and James were ordered to meet with the social worker.

Julie failed to meet most of the conditions and James did not meet any of them, so in December the department initiated TPR proceedings. Judge James J. Bolgert conducted a fact-finding jury trial on March 6, 2001, to determine if there were statutory grounds for termination. The jury found Julie to be unfit and the process moved toward a...