Background
Barron County petitioned to terminate K. L. P.’s parental rights to her two daughters, alleging abandonment, continuing need of protection or services, and failure to assume parental responsibility. K. L. P., whom the opinion calls Karen, pleaded no contest to each ground. The circuit court accepted the pleas and found her unfit without hearing supporting testimony at the plea hearing.
At the later dispositional hearing, the court heard testimony from the children’s social worker and therapist, the children’s father, and Karen. It determined that termination was in the children’s best interests and entered termination orders. Karen unsuccessfully sought postdisposition relief, arguing that the failure to take supporting testimony when she entered her pleas deprived the circuit court of competency to proceed.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the termination and postdisposition orders. It assumed without deciding that Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) requires a circuit court to hear testimony supporting a termination petition’s allegations at the time it accepts a no-contest plea.
The court nevertheless held that any failure to take the testimony at that time did not deprive the circuit court of competency. The assumed timing requirement is not central to Chapter 48’s statutory scheme because the proceeding as a whole may establish the factual basis before a termination order is entered, thereby protecting the parent’s interest in accurate and fair fact-finding. The court distinguished precedent involving an express statutory waiting period and declined to conduct harmless-error review because Karen did not argue that she was prejudiced or that the evidence failed to support her pleas.
Key Takeaways
- The court addressed the competency argument despite its untimely presentation because parental rights are fundamental, the issue was fully briefed, and the circuit court had considered it after disposition.
- Assuming § 48.422(3) requires supporting testimony when a no-contest plea is entered, noncompliance with that timing requirement does not eliminate circuit-court competency.
- A factual basis developed during the termination proceeding as a whole, before entry of the final termination order, can fulfill the statute’s protective purpose.
Why It Matters
The decision separates a possible procedural error during the grounds phase of a termination proceeding from a jurisdictional-competency defect. A circuit court does not necessarily lose its authority to continue merely because it failed to take supporting testimony contemporaneously with a parent’s no-contest plea.
The opinion also underscores that competency turns on whether the violated requirement is central to the statutory scheme. Express Chapter 48 deadlines may qualify, but the assumed timing directive at issue here did not.