In Re Desmond F.

795 N.W.2d 730 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In October 2008, Desmond was adjudged to be a child in need of protection or services. Nine months later, the County filed a petition for involuntary termination of M's parental rights. The County alleged that Desmond was in continuing need of protection or services and that M failed to assume parental responsibility. M opposed the petition, demanded a jury trial for the fact-finding hearing, and waived the statutory time limits. The day before the trial, M's attorney advised the court that M intended to plead no contest to the allegation that there were grounds for termination. M still intended to contest the ultimate disposition. M would argue to the Court that it's not in the best interests of the child to terminate her parental rights. The court engaged M in a colloquy to determine whether she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently intended to plead no contest to grounds for termination. Both M's counsel and counsel for the County addressed M and made extensive inquiries relating to her plea. The court inquired into whether M understood that she was giving up the right to make the County prove the elements of continuing need of protection or services by clear and convincing evidence. Upon the court's questioning, M indicated she understood that if the court accepted her plea, the court would be required to make a finding of parental unfitness. The court informed M that once grounds for termination were found, the next phase would consist of a dispositional hearing. It explained the court could either grant the petition or dismiss the petition, and that decision would be made based on the best interests of the child. The court outlined the factors that it would consider at disposition. These factors include: the likelihood of the child's adoption after termination; the age and health of the child; whether the child has a substantial relationship with the parent or other family members and whether it would be harmful to the child to sever those relationships; the wishes of the child; the duration of the separation of the parent from the child; and whether the child will enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of the termination taking into account the condition of the current placement, the likelihood of future placements, and the results of prior placements. M was again questioned by the County if she knew and understood the consequences of the no contest plea. In response to questions from her own attorney, M professed to understand how the termination of parental rights proceedings operates. The circuit court terminated M's parental rights to Desmond. M appealed. On remand in the circuit court, M argued that the colloquy was deficient because the court should have inquired into whether she understood that she was waiving her constitutionally protected right to act as a parent by pleading no contest. M also argued that the circuit court was required to determine whether she understood all of the potential dispositions available. It denied the motion to withdraw her no contest plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. M appealed.