In the matter of the guardianship and protective placement of Aaron B.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Sept. 15, 2009. Appeal No. 2008AP2653

Ultimately, the hearing on the remaining issues in Margaret’s motion and the Watts hearing was held over the course of two days, on October 21 and October 28, 2008. During the hearing, Margaret testified about Aaron’s need for care and her beliefs concerning the proper funding for that care. Testimony and documentation from Margaret contained detailed examples of Aaron’s violent rages:

• Aaron refused to go up some stairs in a group home. When a staff member went to physically move him, Aaron hit the staff member in the face.
• When a shirt had not been washed as promised, Aaron said he was angry; the staff member walked away. In response, Aaron threw a television set and had to be restrained.
• While living in Margaret’s home, Aaron attempted to use a knife on himself, turned over a bookcase, and ran into the street. He was taken to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex.
• While living in Margaret’s home, Aaron broke furniture and dishes, attacked Margaret, ran into the street and fell, hurting himself.
• At times, Aaron is incontinent. At night it takes forty-five minutes to an hour and a half to get him up, take him to the bathroom and change the linen.
• Aaron once tackled Margaret outside on the sidewalk. He pulled out a chunk of her hair. He bit her arm twice and drew blood. Neighbors rescued her. Aaron was taken to the Mental Health Complex.
• Aaron got angry one night. Margaret woke up at 11:30 and he was standing over her bed holding scissors. He said he was thinking about stabbing her because she used a mean voice when she tucked him in.
• A caregiver blocked Aaron from trying to throw himself down some stairs. In response, Aaron bit him.

Margaret testified that based on her concerns for Aaron’s safety, she believed that there needed to be two people to supervise Aaron at all times, paid at a rate she considered necessary to obtain appropriate caregivers, and that the County should pay her for her caregiving services as the needed second person.

Full case is here.

In re R.G., 2009-Ohio-6284.

These parental termination cases seem to be getting worse. I feel bad for the responding officers:

On February 22, 2007, Akron police officers removed the children from their home under Rule 6 of the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The officers had responded to a report that the oldest child, R.G., was attacking the mother with a large board.

When the officers arrived at the home, they discovered that the mother had locked herself in a bedroom and was unable to control any of the four children who were home at the time. In addition to R.G. threatening others in the home with a large board, N.G., then age three, was on the roof of the house throwing toys and household items.

As the officers attempted to restrain R.G., his younger brother, who also has the initials R.G., came out of the kitchen wielding a butcher knife.

The officers also discovered that both R.G.s had bruises on their legs, which the boys claimed had been inflicted by the mother.

The full case is here in PDF format.

State of Wisconsin v. DAY

PER CURIAM. The Defendant (Mr. Day) appeals pro se from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of exposing a child to harmful materials, and one count of child enticement. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the order. [...]

In his postconviction motion and on appeal, Day challenges various aspects of his trial counsel’s representation. We address his arguments seriatim.

Day contends that his trial counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to impeach L.K. (a 12 year-old) with alleged “inconsistent” testimony as to how much pubic hair Day has. Day argues that at the preliminary hearing, L.K. testified that Day had a lot of pubic hair, but at trial testified that he could not recall a significant amount of pubic hair on Day.

At trial, Day testified that he shaves his pubic region, and explained why. Prior to trial, he also took photographs of himself in jail to demonstrate that his pubic region was shaved. Day contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have taken the pictures himself to ensure the quality of the images, and for failing to introduce the photographic evidence at trial.

Read the rest of this entry »

My question is, if a 23-year old girl is so mentally impaired that she can’t give consent, then why did her parents let her out of the house?

In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. T. R., Child

Appellant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that he had the requisite intent to aid and abet third-degree criminal sexual conduct or that he was aware that the victim was mentally impaired. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s delinquency adjudication, we affirm.

Read the rest of this entry »

Apparently a clean house goes a long way in Minnesota.

Yesterday the Minnesota Court of Appeals clarified what exactly a “Child in need of protection or services” means under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2008).

A child is not a child in need of protection or services unless one of the enumerated child-protection grounds exists and the child needs protection or services as a result. The list of child-protection grounds is here.

This means that the child can suffer any of the horrible things listed, like child prostitution or medical neglect and the court can still find that the child is ineligible for protection. This prevents the removal of children from parents who were not parties to the abuse – ie, the babysitter is molesting the child without the parent’s knowledge. But in yesterday’s opinion, the court seems to apply this “clarification” to a situation where the parent was the abuser.

Yesterday’s case involved a mother with a toddler:

[The mother] is also the biological parent of four other children. [The mother's] parental rights to these children were voluntarily terminated in 2002. In that case, the district court initially held that the children were in need of protection or services based upon the following findings:

1. (the mother) engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with her children;
2. the children had been exposed to long-term neglect including, but not limited to, their dental and physical health, inappropriate exposure to sexual behavior, homelessness, and unsafe caretakers;
3. (the mother) was in need of a thorough psychological/psychiatric examination, including a psychosexual evaluation;
4. It was in the children’s best interest not to return to (the mother’s) custody at that time.

Appellant Ramsey County Community Human Services Department (department) filed a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services (CHIPS) petition on February 1, 2008, alleging that the child is a child in need of protection or services. The petition alleged the following grounds in support of a finding that the child is a child in need of protection or services:

1. The child resides with a perpetrator of domestic child abuse or child abuse.
2. The child is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, or other required care for her physical or mental health or morals because [the mother] is unable or unwilling to provide care.
3. The child is without proper parental care because of the emotional, mental, or physical disability, or state of immaturity of the mother.
4. The child’s behavior, condition, or environment is such as to be injurious or dangerous to the child or others.

Despite its recognition that services would be beneficial, the district court concluded that it was compelled to hold [the department] to its burden of proof stating, “The fear that [the mother's] history of child abuse might be repeated is not sufficient to meet [the department‟s] legal burden.” The district court based its conclusion on “direct evidence concerning [the mother's] care of the child, her maintenance of her home and her interactions with the child.”

The court declined to adopt the rule that a child who was abused at any point could be removed without a present danger to the child.

And it seems like this mother passed the test:

The assigned caseworker of seven months observed nothing to suggest [the mother] was not providing for [the child’s] needs during the worker’s 20 visits to the home.

The lesson seems to be if you clean up your act, you can keep your kids.

Read the full opinion here.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. S. W., Parent. Minnesota Court of Appeals A08-2243. Ramsey County District Court. File No. 62-JV-08-457

Termination of parental rights cases have the most horrifying fact patterns.¹

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.K.B. and M.A.R., Parents. ²

On April 4, 2006, before the birth of C.C.R. and D.B., Isanti County Family Services (ICFS) received a report regarding C.R., born November 22, 2004, and D.T.R., born May 14, 2002, stating that the children’s home was “filthy,” that syringes and small baggies commonly used to package drugs were present in the home, and that mother had been heard asking others to obtain Vicodin for her.

ICFS conducted a welfare check of the home and observed that the inside of the home was littered with dirty dishes, old food, sharp knives within the children’s reach, chemicals, tools, and animal feces. D.T.R. was playing in the yard, which was “cluttered with broken glass, chemicals, car parts, and other garbage.”

D.T.R.’s mattress was “extremely dirty” and had no linens other than a blanket. A significant amount of animal feces was in the room. ICFS informed father, who was the only parent home at that time, that D.T.R. would be removed from the home due to the hazards observed, and that appellants must also give C.R. to ICFS.

When appellants turned over custody of C.R., she was afflicted with a sinus infection, a double-ear infection, and a possible throat infection.

² The full case is here.