## Facts

- In June 1993, La Crosse County Department of Human Services (the Department) received a referral alleging that Sara M.’s children were abused and neglected.
- The Department provided services to Sara for nearly two years before Sara’s incarceration, addressing parenting deficits, instability, and safety concerns linked to Sara’s relationships with violent men.
- On March 22, 1995, the children—Dallas M. (born March 5, 1987) and Kaelan R.W.S. (born August 17, 1992)—were placed outside the home when Sara was confined in the La Crosse County Jail.
- On May 26, 1995, both children were adjudicated children in need of protection or services (CHIPS). The CHIPS order continued out-of-home placement and included a permanency plan.
- The Department used and updated permanency plans during the CHIPS case; the plans were reviewed in court proceedings and by an independent panel (including a review on January 22, 1996).
- The circuit court extended the CHIPS orders on June 7, 1996, finding Sara had not made substantial progress on most conditions required for the children’s return.
- Services provided to Sara at no cost included a caseworker, parent aide services, counseling and therapy, transportation, supervised visitation, respite services, childcare, employment-related assistance, and continued placement services for the children.
- Sara’s participation and progress were inconsistent. She missed numerous counseling sessions (including 17 of 50 appointments with one counselor and about 25% of sessions with another), lacked stable housing, did not meet the children’s basic needs, and continued involvement with abusive men remained a safety concern.
- On May 21, 1997, the Department filed petitions to terminate Sara’s parental rights (TPR) as to both children.
- A jury trial was held August 18–20, 1997. The jury found statutory grounds for termination and found that the Department made diligent efforts to provide ordered services intended to support reunification.
- The circuit court entered judgments terminating Sara’s parental rights. Sara appealed, challenging (among other things) permanency-plan timing and format, the sufficiency of the Department’s efforts, and a condition requiring her to avoid association with abusive men.

## Issues

1. Whether late filing or late review of permanency plans, or using a standardized form rather than a narrative plan, required reversal of the TPR judgments on statutory or due process grounds.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the Department made “diligent efforts” to provide services ordered to help achieve reunification.
3. Whether a condition requiring Sara to refrain from associating with abusive men violated the First Amendment right of association.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, affirmed the circuit court’s judgments terminating Sara M.’s parental rights to Dallas M. and Kaelan R.W.S.
- The court held that deficiencies in permanency-plan timing or the use of a form document did not warrant reversal absent a showing of prejudice affecting the fairness of the proceedings, and that Sara did not preserve a format challenge by failing to object when the plans were reviewed.
- The court held that the jury’s diligent-efforts finding was supported by evidence of extensive, ongoing services offered over a lengthy period; the Department was not required to ensure Sara’s participation or success.
- The court rejected Sara’s First Amendment challenge, concluding that limiting association with abusive men as a condition tied to child safety and reunification was constitutionally permissible in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory deadlines for permanency-plan filing and review in CHIPS-related proceedings are generally treated as directory; missing them does not automatically invalidate later TPR proceedings.
- A procedural defect in permanency-plan timing or format is not reversible error without a showing of prejudice that affected fundamental fairness.
- A party who does not object to an alleged deficiency in the form or content of permanency plans at the time of review hearings generally cannot raise that objection later as a basis for reversal.
- “Diligent efforts” by an agency are shown by reasonable, sustained attempts to provide and coordinate ordered services aimed at reunification; the agency need not guarantee engagement or reunification.
- Limits placed on a parent’s associations as part of CHIPS-related conditions may be upheld when reasonably connected to protecting children and addressing the reasons for court involvement, even though association is generally protected by the First Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the termination judgments, concluding that delays or form-based permanency plans did not justify reversal without demonstrated prejudice, that the record supported the jury’s finding of diligent reunification efforts through extensive services offered over time, and that requiring Sara to avoid abusive men as a condition related to the children’s safety did not violate the First Amendment.


In re Dallas M., 581 N.W.2d 596, Nos. 1998AP000307, 1998AP000308 (1998)