W.A.B. v. W.G.B. (In re W.A.B.)

Citations: 925 N.W.2d 783; 2019 WI App 5; 385 Wis. 2d 514Docket: Appeal Nos. 2017AP2468; 2017AP2469

Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin; December 4, 2018; Wisconsin; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Fond du Lac County Department of Social Services (DSS) appeals the dismissal of petitions asserting that W.A.B. and Y.B. are children in need of protection or services (CHIPS). The circuit court dismissed these petitions with prejudice, citing issue and claim preclusion, which DSS contends was erroneous. The background reveals that W.A.B. and Y.B., adopted from Haiti in 2013, faced alleged abuse from their adoptive parents, leading to a prior juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS) case. Following a violent incident involving W.A.B. in June 2016, the JIPS petition was filed, but the adoptive parents expressed distrust toward DSS, opposing reunification efforts.

In April 2017, DSS filed CHIPS petitions, alleging severe psychological harm due to parental neglect and abuse, which included claims of withholding the siblings from seeing each other, negatively impacting their mental health. The parents moved to dismiss the CHIPS petitions, claiming they were precluded by the earlier JIPS case. The circuit court agreed, asserting the issues were the same across both cases. DSS and W.A.B. argue that the matters in the CHIPS petitions were not fully litigated in the JIPS case and that the two cases involve distinct legal claims. The court did not clarify which preclusion doctrine applied when dismissing the CHIPS petitions. The appellate court concludes that JIPS and CHIPS dispositions are separate legal areas, and thus, the earlier JIPS disposition does not bar the CHIPS proceedings. The appellate court reverses the dismissal and remands for further proceedings.

Issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of law or fact issues that were previously adjudicated in another action. For issue preclusion to apply, the party against whom it is invoked must have been involved in the prior action, the issue must have been "actually litigated," and its application must align with "principles of fundamental fairness." The Wisconsin Supreme Court outlined factors to assess fundamental fairness, including the possibility of judicial review, the nature of the questions involved, differences in proceedings, shifts in burdens of persuasion, and public policy considerations. No single factor is determinative, and not all factors must be considered.

In the current case, the parents contend that an issue from a CHIPS petition was litigated in a JIPS case and argue that applying issue preclusion is fair. However, the court finds JIPS and CHIPS to be distinct statutory processes with different objectives and procedures. The establishment of the juvenile justice code in 1995 under WIS. STAT. ch. 938 reflects legislative intent to address juvenile delinquency through accountability, individualized assessment, and effective dispositional options. JIPS petitions arise from juvenile behavior issues, while CHIPS addresses broader child welfare concerns. Thus, applying issue preclusion in this context would not be appropriate.

A CHIPS petition arises from actions or circumstances affecting a child, as outlined in WISCONSIN STAT. 48.13, which identifies fifteen conditions such as abandonment, abuse, neglect, or emotional damage, all unrelated to the child's actions. The children's code prioritizes the best interests of the child, as stated in WIS. STAT. 48.01(1), emphasizing the protection of children and the support of parents to maintain family unity. JIPS cases focus on juvenile accountability for wrongful conduct and community protection, often treating parents as secondary to the juvenile's rehabilitation, whereas CHIPS cases center on the child's welfare and the parents' responsibilities.

In the case of W.A.B., a delinquency petition was initially based on her misconduct, followed by a JIPS petition. W.A.B. did not contest the JIPS petition, which proceeded to a dispositional hearing primarily concerning her parents' objections to a proposed rule regarding treatment information. The discussion of sibling visitation arose incidentally to the parents' opposition rather than being a central issue.

The distinctions between JIPS and CHIPS adjudications are clear: they serve different purposes and focus on different issues. The allegations against W.A.B. in the JIPS case do not overlap with the CHIPS allegations regarding emotional damage and parental neglect. Given these factors, including the uncontested nature of the JIPS case and the necessity to fully investigate the CHIPS allegations, issue preclusion is deemed inapplicable.

Claim preclusion prohibits relitigating claims arising from the same facts or occurrences after a final judgment. A final judgment is binding on all subsequent matters that were or could have been litigated in prior proceedings, reinforcing the principle that previously settled issues cannot be revisited.

Claim preclusion requires three factors: (1) identity between parties in previous and current suits, (2) identity of causes of action, and (3) a final judgment on the merits from a competent court. While the first and third factors are not disputed in this case, the parties disagree on the identity of causes of action in the CHIPS and JIPS proceedings. Wisconsin courts utilize a 'transactional approach' to determine this identity, which is based on a common nucleus of operative facts.

The CHIPS petitions assert that W.A.B. and Y.B. are suffering emotional damage due to parental neglect, while the parents contend the petitions focus on sibling separation, an issue previously addressed in the JIPS order. The Department of Social Services (DSS) argues that the CHIPS cases involve broader allegations including abuse and mental health concerns for W.A.B. The conclusion reached is that there is no common nucleus of operative facts between the two cases. The JIPS case centered solely on W.A.B.'s alleged wrongful conduct and her need for rehabilitation, while the CHIPS petitions focus on the parents' actions regarding the children's welfare. Notably, there was no DSS petition concerning Y.B. prior to her CHIPS petition, meaning her need for protection had not been previously adjudicated. Ultimately, the CHIPS and JIPS petitions serve different purposes and focuses, precluding one from barring the other despite some overlapping outcomes.

The CHIPS cases are allowed to proceed, with orders reversed and causes remanded by the court. This opinion is not for publication per WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4. The appeal is decided by a single judge under Wis. Stat. 752.31(2)(e), referring to the 2015-16 version of the statutes. The Department of Social Services (DSS) successfully moved to consolidate appeal Nos. 2017AP2468 and 2017AP2469 on February 22, 2018. Wisconsin Stat. 938.13(14) grants the court exclusive original jurisdiction over a juvenile determined not responsible for a delinquent act due to mental disease or defect or not competent to proceed. The court reviews whether an issue was actually litigated as a legal question de novo, while fundamental fairness is reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion. The court references Mrozek v. Intra Fin. Corp. and Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., emphasizing that some factors considered are questions of law and noting that the parties agree on the issue of whether they were the same or in privity.