In Re the Guardianship of Giovanna P. v. Maegan F.

2013 WI 89
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2011AP2887
COMPLETE TITLE: In the matter of the guardianship of Giovanna P.
Steve P. and Donna P.,
Petitioners-Appellants-Petitioners,
v.
Maegan F. and Noel G.,
Respondents-Respondents.
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Reported at 345 Wis. 2d 847, 826 N.W.2d 123
(Ct. App. 2012 – Unpublished)
OPINION FILED: November 8, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT: Circuit
COUNTY: Milwaukee
JUDGE: Marshall B. Murray
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.
ATTORNEYS:
For the petitioners-appellants-petitioners, there were
briefs by Renee E. Mura, and Renee E. Mura, S.C., Kenosha.
For respondent-respondent Maegan F., there was a brief by
Chris Velnetske and Velnetske Law Offices, LLC, Thiensville.
For respondent-respondent Noel G., there was a brief by
Laurence M. Moon, Milwaukee.
There was a brief by guardian ad litem Shelia R. Hill-
Roberts and Legal Aid Society, Milwaukee; and Michael J.
Aprahamian, Brian P. Keenan, Kristina J. Matic, Philip C.
Babler, and Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, attorneys for
guardian ad litem.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by J.B. Van Hollen,
attorney general, Maria S. Lazar, assistant attorney general, on
behalf of Wisconsin Department of Children and Families.
2
2013 WI 89
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2011AP2887
(L.C. No. 2011JG304)
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the matter of the guardianship of Giovanna
P.
Steve P. and Donna P., FILED
Petitioners-Appellants-Petitioners,
NOV 8, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Maegan F. and Noel G.,
Respondents-Respondents.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed
as improvidently granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Petitioners-appellants-petitioners,
Steve P. and Donna P., are the prospective adoptive parents of
Giovanna P., born November 12, 2010. Steve P. and Donna P.
petitioned for review of an unpublished decision1 of the court of
appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's order2 dismissing
1
Steve P. v. Maegan F., No. 2011AP2887, unpublished slip
op. (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012).
2
The Honorable Marshall B. Murray of Milwaukee County
presided.
No. 2011AP2887
their petition under Wis. Stat. ch. 54 for guardianship of
Giovanna P. After examining the record and the briefs filed
with this court, we conclude that the petition for review was
improvidently granted.
¶2 The essential facts are as follows.3 As a result of a
pre-adoptive placement by an adoption agency, Steve P. and
Donna P. raised Giovanna P. from birth to about ten months old.
During Giovanna P.'s time with Steve P. and Donna P.,
respondents-respondents Maegan F. and Noel G.——Giovanna P.'s
biological parents——decided they wanted custody of Giovanna P.
Both Maegan F.'s and Noel G.'s parental rights were intact;
neither set of parental rights had been terminated. Steve P.
and Donna P. filed a petition for permanent guardianship of
Giovanna P., which the circuit court dismissed on September 20,
2011. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court. This
court granted review.
¶3 Giovanna P. currently resides in a foster home——her
third placement since she was removed from Steve P.'s and
Donna P.'s custody.4 Giovanna P. has never been in the custody
3
We take the essential facts of this case both from the
record and from the parties' and the guardian ad litem's (GAL)
periodic reports of developments in various ongoing circuit
court proceedings addressing Giovanna P.'s custody and
placement. This court required the filing of these periodic
reports in an earlier order.
4
On September 20, 2011, immediately after the circuit court
dismissed Steve P.'s and Donna P.'s petition for guardianship of
Giovanna P., the circuit court placed Giovanna P. in a temporary
licensed foster home for two days until a relative placement
could be approved. On September 22, 2011, Giovanna P. was
placed with her maternal grandmother, with whom she lived for
2
No. 2011AP2887
of either of her biological parents: Noel G. has been
imprisoned since Giovanna P.'s birth, and Maegan F. has failed
to satisfy the conditions established for Giovanna P.'s
placement with her.
¶4 Giovanna P. is currently the subject of two pending
cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. First, Giovanna P. is
the subject of a child in need of protection and services
(CHIPS) case. On January 19, 2012, the circuit court found
Giovanna P. to be a child in need of protection and services
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.13(8). A CHIPS extension order
remains in effect. Second, on July 8, 2013, the Milwaukee
County District Attorney's Office filed a petition to terminate
Noel G.'s and Maegan F.'s parental rights to Giovanna P. A jury
trial in the termination of parental rights (TPR) case is
scheduled for January 13, 2014. As required by statute, the
circuit court has appointed a GAL to advocate for Giovanna P.'s
best interests in the TPR case. See Wis. Stat. §§ 48.235(1)(c);
48.235(3)(a). The circuit court has appointed a different GAL
in the TPR case than the GAL involved in the guardianship matter
currently before this Court.
¶5 Because it appears that the above-described circuit
court proceedings may fully and finally resolve Giovanna P.'s
eleven months. This placement ended after the Bureau of
Milwaukee Child Welfare determined that the grandmother could
not maintain a safe, appropriate, and stable living environment
for Giovanna P. On August 28, 2012, Giovanna P. was placed in
the foster home where she currently resides.
3
No. 2011AP2887
custody and placement status in the coming few months, we
dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.
¶6 We note that on September 6, 2013, Steve P. and
Donna P. filed a "Motion for Clarification and Sanctions"
regarding the GAL's retention of counsel and the brief-in-chief
filed by counsel on the GAL's behalf. Because we have
determined that the petition for review should be dismissed as
improvidently granted, we need not address this motion.
¶7 By the Court. The review of the decision of the court
of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.
¶8 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., withdrew from participation.
4
No. 2011AP2887
1