[6]*6DIANE S. SYKES, J.
¶ 1. This termination of parental rights (TPR) case presents two issues for our review: 1) whether partial summary judgment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 802.08 (2001-02)1 is available in the first phase of a TPR case, at which parental unfitness is adjudicated; and 2) whether the circuit court is required at the initial TPR hearing to advise the nonpetitioning party of his or her right under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5) to a continuance to consult with counsel on the issue of judicial substitution.
¶ 2. Alexander Vs father filed a petition to terminate Kelley H.'s parental rights to Alexander, alleging as grounds that Kelley had been denied physical placement and visitation by court order for more than one year pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). Kelley requested a jury trial. At the fact-finding hearing the circuit court granted the guardian ad litem's motion for summary judgment on the issue of unfitness, based upon the undisputed fact that Kelley had been denied placement and visitation by a court order that had been in place, unmodified, for more than two years. After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Kelley's parental rights. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that although the circuit court had committed two procedural errors — by employing summary judgment procedure and failing to advise Kelley of her statutory right to a continuance to consult with counsel about judicial substitution — these errors were harmless. Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2003 WI App 10, 263 Wis. 2d 241, 663 N.W.2d 817. We affirm, although on different reasoning.
[7]*7¶ 3. A parent who contests a TPR petition has a statutory right to a jury trial at the fact-finding hearing at which his or her parental unfitness is adjudicated— the so-called "grounds" or "unfitness" phase of a TPR proceeding. Wis. Stat. § 48.31(2). The statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are specified in Wis. Stat. § 48.415, and several of these may be proved by official documentary evidence. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 48.415(lm), (4), (9), and (9m).
¶ 4. By statute and as a matter of procedural due process, parental unfitness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Wis. Stat. § 48.31(1); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). The jury trial right, however, is entirely statutory, not mandated by constitutional due process, and is therefore generally subject to the provisions of the civil procedure code, including the summary judgment statute, Wis. Stat. § 802.08, unless the TPR statutes provide otherwise. See Wis. Stat. § 801.01(2). The TPR statutes do not provide otherwise, either explicitly or implicitly.
¶ 5. We conclude that partial summary judgment in the unfitness phase of a TPR case is available where the requirements of the summary judgment statute and the applicable legal standards in Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415 and 48.31 have been met. An order granting partial summary judgment on the issue of parental unfitness where there are no facts in dispute and the applicable legal standards have been satisfied does not violate the parent's statutory right to a jury trial under Wis. Stat. §§ 48.422(4) and 48.31(2), or the parent's constitutional right to procedural due process.
¶ 6. Accordingly, partial summary judgment may be granted in the unfitness phase of a TPR case where the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the asserted [8]*8grounds for unfitness under Wis. Stat. § 48.415, and, taking into consideration the heightened burden of proof specified in Wis. Stat. § 48.31(1) and required by-due process, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We overrule Walworth County Dep't of Human Servs. v. Elizabeth W., 189 Wis. 2d 432, 525 N.W.2d 384 (Ct. App. 1994), to the extent that it outright prohibited summary judgment in TPR proceedings. The circuit court's use of summary judgment procedure was not error.
¶ 7. We also withdraw the language in M.W. and I.W. v. Monroe County Dep't of Human Servs., 116 Wis. 2d 432, 342 N.W.2d 410 (1984), that purported to articulate a requirement that the circuit court advise any nonpetitioning party in a TPR case of his or her right under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5) to a continuance to consult with counsel about judicial substitution. M.W. and I.W. described too broadly the statutory duties of the circuit court at the initial TPR hearing under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(1). In fact, the statute does not require the circuit court to advise nonpetitioning parties of the statutory right to a continuance to consult with counsel regarding judicial substitution. The circuit court's failure to do so here was not error.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 8. On August 8, 2001, Steven Y, Alexander's father, filed a petition in Grant County Circuit Court to terminate Kelley H.'s parental rights to Alexander. As grounds for termination Steven alleged continuing court-ordered denial of physical placement and visitation for more than one year pursuant to Wis. Stat. [9]*9§ 48.415(4).2 In his petition, Steven alleged that Kelley had been denied custody, placement, and visitation of Alexander by an order of the Brown County Circuit Court that had been in place and remained unmodified for more than one year.
¶ 9. Steven's petition did not contain the order to which it referred, but the motion for summary judgment that is the focus of this appeal did. The documentary record reflects that on May 12, 1999, in Brown County Circuit Court, the Honorable William C. Gries-bach awarded Steven sole legal custody and physical placement of Alexander, and denied Kelley custody, placement, and visitation. In written "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment of Custody and Placement," filed on June 28, 1999, the circuit court found that Kelley had physically neglected Alexander and had emotionally abused him by trying to "brainwash him" into believing that his father was evil. The court also found that Kelley had attempted to arrange the murder of Steven and his wife, had absconded to California with Alexander, and had made false accusations of child abuse against Steven and his wife. The [10]*10court awarded sole custody and physical placement of Alexander to Steven, and denied Kelley custody, placement, and "any and all visitation," concluding that contact between mother and child would endanger Alexander's physical and especially emotional health. The court also imposed a number of conditions that Kelley would need to satisfy before any modification of the ban on visitation would be considered.
¶ 10. An initial hearing on the TPR petition was held in Grant County Circuit Court on September 4, 2001, before the Honorable Robert B. VanDeHey. Kelley appeared with her attorney and requested a jury trial.
¶ 11. On September 17, 2001, Alexander's guardian ad litem filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Directed Verdict" in which he asserted that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the grounds for termination alleged in the petition and that Steven was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the guardian ad litem recounting the procedural history of the Brown County custody proceeding, and included a copy of Judge Griesbach's June 28, 1999, order.
¶ 12. Kelley responded to the motion by arguing that Elizabeth W. prohibits summary judgment in TPR proceedings. Kelley conceded that directed verdicts were permissible in TPR cases, but insisted that before a directed verdict could be entered in her case, the court was required to empanel a jury to hear evidence.
¶ 13. On October 15, 2001, the circuit court conducted a hearing at which counsel and the court discussed the procedural issues occasioned by the guardian ad litem's motion. Ultimately, the court scheduled a fact-finding hearing for November 2, 2001, and stated that Kelley would have until October 25, 2001, to identify any facts in dispute that would necessitate a [11]*11jury trial for fact-finding with respect to the TPR grounds alleged in Steven's petition.
¶ 14. Kelley did not respond by the-October 25, 2001, deadline. At the November 2, 2001, hearing, the parties were presented with an order of the court apparently prepared and submitted sometime earlier by the guardian ad litem but dated, signed, and filed on November 2, 2001. The order memorialized what had occurred at the prior hearing, and further provided as follows:
[tjhis matter will be scheduled for fact finding on November 2, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. at which time the Court will rule in favor of the Guardian ad Litem's motion for directed verdict unless Attorney Gaskell, on behalf of Kelley H., files notification to the Court on or before October 25, 2001 that a legitimate issue exists to be tried at trial.
The order also stated that the Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Directed Verdict would be heard on October 15, 2001, that is, the date of the prior hearing, two weeks before the order was signed and entered.
¶ 15. Despite these incongruities, the parties agreed at the November 2 hearing that there were no facts in dispute as to the existence of an unmodified court order denying Kelley placement and visitation with Alexander, and that the order had been in place for more than one year. Kelley's attorney stated that "it's clear that, based on what the elements are as grounds in this case, that the Court does have the authority to direct a verdict in regard to that — or summary judgment, I guess, type motion." There was a brief discussion about whether the reasons for Kelley's noncompliance with the conditions set forth in Judge Griesbach's order for modification of the visitation ban would be [12]*12relevant at the unfitness phase or at the dispositional phase. Kelley's position was not entirely clear, although at one point her attorney conceded that "if the reasons why she did not comply with that order we believe would not be relevant at the first phase of that, then I agree that fact-finding hearing is not required and we don't need a trial."
¶ 16. The circuit court concluded that the reasons for Kelley's noncompliance "are very relevant but not at this stage." The court then took judicial notice of the file in the Brown County case, which "substantiate [s] that both elements are present, first that [Kelley H.] has been denied periods of physical placement by court order in an action affecting the family and that the notice was given, and second that at least a year elapsed since the order denying periods of physical placement was issued, and there was no modification." The court then scheduled a dispositional hearing, and discussed with counsel the parameters of that hearing. On November 9, 2001, the circuit court entered a written order directing a verdict in favor of Steven on the issue of Kelley's parental unfitness pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). The dispositional hearing was held on April 11 and 12, 2002, after which the circuit court concluded that it was in Alexander's best interests to terminate Kelley's parental rights, and entered judgment accordingly.
¶ 17. Kelley moved for new fact-finding and dis-positional hearings, arguing that she had been denied her right to a jury trial for fact-finding and her right to due process, and that there was insufficient evidence to support termination. She also argued that at the time of the initial hearing she had not been informed of her right under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5) to a continuance to [13]*13consult with counsel regarding judicial substitution. The circuit court denied the motion.
¶ 18. Kelley appealed, reiterating the claims of error stated in her post-judgment motion. The court of appeals held that pursuant to Elizabeth W, the circuit court had erred by granting what amounted to summary judgment at the grounds phase. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because there was no dispute of fact relevant to the grounds for termination, and Kelley was not prejudiced by the error. Kelley H., 263 Wis. 2d 241, ¶¶ 22-28. The court of appeals also suggested that Elizabeth Ws prohibition on summary judgment in TPR proceedings might be overbroad, considering that certain grounds for termination were provable by undisputed court order. Id., ¶¶ 15-21. The court nevertheless considered itself bound by Elizabeth W, and stated that any argument that the case had been incorrectly decided must be directed to this court. Id., ¶ 21.
¶ 19. The court of appeals also held that the circuit court's failure to inform Kelley of her right to request a continuance to consult with her attorney about judicial substitution was error, citing language in this court's decision in M.W. and I.W. that purports to impose such a warning requirement. Id., ¶¶ 31-35. While the statutory right to a continuance to confer with counsel about judicial substitution was not in fact at issue in M.W. and I.W., this court's opinion contained broad language specifying the circuit court's statutory duties at the initial TPR hearing, including a duty to advise the nonpetitioning party of his or her right to a continuance to consult with counsel about judicial substitution. See M.W. and I.W., 116 Wis. 2d at 440-41. The court of appeals majority declined to treat this language as dicta, but ultimately concluded that the [14]*14circuit court's error in failing to follow it was harmless. Kelley H., 263 Wis. 2d 241, ¶¶ 34-35, 41-42.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 20. The two questions in this case — whether the summary judgment statute applies in TPR cases and whether a circuit court is statutorily required to advise a nonpetitioning party in a TPR case of his or her right to a continuance to consult with counsel about judicial substitution — are questions of law subject to de novo review. Brandon S.S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis. 2d 114, 127, 507 N.W.2d 94 (1993).
III. ANALYSIS
¶ 21. Parental rights termination adjudications are among the most consequential of judicial acts, involving as they do "the awesome authority of the State to destroy permanently all legal recognition of the parental relationship." Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768 (quoting M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 127-28 (1996)). Termination of parental rights permanently extinguishes "all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations existing between parent and child." Wis. Stat. § 48.40(2).
¶ 22. A parent's interest in the parent-child relationship and in the care, custody, and management of his or her child is recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). The United States Supreme Court has described the fundamental nature of parental rights in this way:
[15]*15It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children "come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements." Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 95 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
The Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential," Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), and "rights far more precious ... than property rights," May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).
¶ 23. Thus, due process requires that "[w]hen the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753-54. These include the requirement of a hearing, Stanley, 405 U.S. at 649, and proof of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, Santosky, 455 U.S. at 747-48.
¶ 24. Wisconsin has a two-part statutory procedure for the involuntary termination of parental rights. Sheboygan County DHHS v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95, ¶ 24, 255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 402. In the first, or "grounds" phase of the proceeding, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the statutorily enumerated grounds for termination [16]*16of parental rights exist. Wis. Stat. § 48.31(1); Waukesha County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. C.E.W., 124 Wis. 2d 47, 60, 368 N.W.2d 47 (1985).
¶ 25. There are 12 statutory grounds of unfitness for .termination of parental rights, see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1)-(10), and if a petitioner proves one or more of the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, "the court shall find the parent unfit." Wis. Stat. § 48.424(4); Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 170, ¶ 26. There are no "degrees of unfitness" under the statutory scheme; a court has no discretion to refrain from finding a parent unfit after all the elements of a statutory ground have been established. Id., ¶¶ 36-37.
¶ 26. The consistent legislative objective throughout the Children's Code is "the best interests of the child." Wis. Stat. § 48.01(1). However, in TPR cases, the "best interests" standard does not "dominate every step of every proceeding." Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 170, ¶ 22. The best interests of the child do not "prevail" until the parent has been declared unfit after fact-finding by the court or jury at the grounds phase of the TPR proceeding. Id. A finding of parental unfitness is a necessary prerequisite to termination of parental rights, but a finding of unfitness does not necessitate that parental rights be terminated. Once the court has declared a parent unfit, the proceeding moves to the second, or dispositional phase, at which the child's best interests are paramount. Id., ¶ 28.
¶ 27. At the dispositional phase, the court is called upon to decide whether it is in the best interest of the child that the parent's rights be permanently extin[17]*17guished. Wis. Stat. § 48.426(2). "The outcome of this hearing is not predetermined, but the focus shifts to the interests of the child." Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 170, ¶ 28. In making this determination, which we have described as'"one of the most wrenching and agonizing in the law," the court "should welcome" any evidence relevant to the issue of disposition, including any "factors favorable to the parent," and must at a minimum consider the six "best interests" factors set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3). Id., ¶ 29.
A. Summary judgment in TPR proceedings
¶ 28. We are concerned here with the "grounds" or "unfitness" phase of a TPR case, and specifically whether the use of summary judgment procedure under Wis. Stat. § 802.08 at this first phase of the proceeding violates the parent's rights under the TPR statutes or procedural due process. Kelley asserts that this question has already been answered by the court of appeals' decision in Elizabeth W.
¶ 29. Elizabeth W. involved a petition to terminate parental rights on grounds of abandonment and continuing need of protection or services. Elizabeth W., 189 Wis. 2d at 434. The circuit court granted a motion for summary judgment against Elizabeth, having concluded that the affidavit and supporting documents filed by her attorney in opposition to the motion were nonevidentiary and insufficient to defeat the petitioner's motion. Id. at 435. After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Elizabeth's parental rights to her two children. Id.
¶ 30. The court of appeals reversed, broadly concluding that "summary judgment is inappropriate in TPR cases where a parent contests the termination." Id. [18]*18at 436. The court premised this conclusion on the principle that parental rights are fundamental liberty interests protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore any state action to terminate parental rights " 'must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause.'" Id. at 436-37 (quoting Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753). The court stated that a hearing on the issue of unfitness is required by statute, Wis. Stat. §§ 48.422(2), 48.31(1), as well as by due process. Id. at 437. The court of appeals then concluded that:
[A] TPR proceeding can never be without material issues of fact if a parent refuses to voluntarily terminate his or her right to the child. ... By contesting the termination, a parent automatically raises the issue of whether he or she is a fit parent. This creates a genuine issue of material fact which cannot be disposed of by summary judgment.
Id. at 438.
¶ 31. The principles underlying the decision in Elizabeth W. were unquestionably sound and well-established; we conclude, however, that the court's holding was overbroad. Neither due process nor the TPR statutes require an absolute prohibition on summary judgment in the grounds or unfitness phase of a TPR proceeding. That a parent has contested the termination of his or her parental rights does not automatically mean there are material facts in dispute regarding the grounds for unfitness.
¶ 32. The code of civil procedure applies to "all civil actions and special proceedings" unless a "different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule." Wis. Stat. §801.01(2). Parental rights termination proceedings under Chapter 48 are civil proceedings, and this general rule of civil procedure applicability has been cited in the [19]*19context of TPR cases on numerous occasions: Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 17 (default judgment as a sanction for violation of a court order pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10(7), 804.12(2)(a), and 805.03 is available in TPR proceedings; also, the harmless error rule of Wis. Stat. § 805.18(2) applies in TPR cases); Brandon S.S., 179 Wis. 2d at 143-44, (citing the general rule that the civil procedure code governs Chapter 48 proceedings but concluding that the general intervention statute, Wis. Stat. § 803.09, conflicts with the exclusive procedure in Wis. Stat. § 48.42(2) for determining proper parties to a TPR proceeding); Waukesha County DSS, 124 Wis. 2d at 53, 66-70 (rules regarding jury instructions, preremptory strikes and summation pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 805.13(3), 805.08(3), and 805.10 apply in TPR proceedings); Door County Dep't of Health & Family Servs. v. Scott S., 230 Wis. 2d 460, 465, 602 N.W.2d 167 (Ct. App. 1999) (directed verdict pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 805.14(4) applies in TPR proceedings); J.A.B. v. Waukesha County Human Servs. Dep't, 153 Wis. 2d 761, 765, 451 N.W.2d 799 (Ct. App. 1989) (same).
¶ 33. There is nothing in the TPR statutes that explicitly or implicitly prohibits the use of summary judgment procedure under Wis. Stat. § 802.08 in the unfitness phase of a TPR case. Nor do the TPR statutes prescribe a procedure different from Wis. Stat. § 802.08 for TPR cases in which there is no genuine dispute of fact on the issue of unfitness under Wis. Stat. § 48.415. Kelley argues that a court order granting partial summary judgment on parental unfitness conflicts with the right to a jury trial at the fact-finding hearing, which she contends is an absolute right under the statutes, [20]*20Wis. Stat. §§48.422(3), (4), and 48.31(2), and as a matter of due process. We disagree.
¶ 34. The jury trial right at the fact-finding hearing in the unfitness phase of a TPR case is entirely statutory, not mandated by constitutional due process, and is therefore subject to the general provisions of the civil procedure code, including the provisions regarding summary judgment, Wis. Stat. § 802.08. A parent may, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.422(4), request a jury for the fact-finding hearing, and the jury, if one is requested, makes findings of fact on the grounds for unfitness alleged in the TPR petition pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.31(3) and (4). The circuit court, however, is always responsible for conclusions of law, as is specifically recognized in the TPR statutes. See Wis. Stat. § 48.31(4). If a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as prescribed by Wis. Stat. § 802.08, the circuit court may properly conclude at the fact-finding hearing that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to partial summary judgment on parental unfitness as a matter of law. See Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2).
¶ 35. Summary judgment is a legal conclusion by the court, and, if carefully administered with due regard for the importance of the rights at stake and the applicable legal standards, is just as appropriate in the unfitness phase of a TPR case where the facts are undisputed as it is in any other type of civil action or proceeding which carries the right to a jury trial.3 [21]*21Summary judgment procedure requires notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing, and imposes on the moving party the burden of demonstrating both the absence of any genuine factual disputes and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the legal standards applicable to the claim. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) and (3).
¶ 36. In many TPR cases, the determination of parental unfitness will require the resolution of factual disputes by a court or jury at the fact-finding hearing, because the alleged grounds for unfitness involve the adjudication of parental conduct vis-a-vis the child. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1) (abandonment); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2) (child in continuing need of protection or services); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(3) (continuing parental disability); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5) (child abuse); Wis. [22]*22Stat. § 48.415(6) (failure to assume parental responsibility); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(7) (incestuous parenthood). Summary judgment will ordinarily be inappropriate in TPR cases premised on these fact-intensive grounds for parental unfitness.
¶ 37. Some statutory grounds for unfitness, however, are expressly provable by official documentary evidence, such as court orders or judgments of conviction. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(lm) (relinquishment, provable by court order); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) (continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation, provable by court order); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(8) (homicide or solicitation to commit homicide of parent, provable by judgment of conviction); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9) (parenthood as a result of sexual assault, provable by judgment of conviction); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9m) (commission of serious felony against one of the person's children, provable by judgment of conviction); Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary termination of parental rights to another child, provable by court order).4 Some of these so-called "paper grounds" for parental unfitness have been recently adopted, seriously undermining the broad holding of Elizabeth W.
¶ 38. In 1995, the legislature enacted a new ground for termination in cases of parenthood as a result of sexual assault: Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9) provides that conception as a result of sexual assault ’’may be proved by a final judgment of conviction . . . indicating that the person who may be the father of the child committed, during a possible time of conception, a [23]*23sexual assault as specified in this paragraph against the mother." Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9). Later in the same session, the legislature enacted two more new grounds for unfitness: commission of a serious felony against one of the parent's children, "as evidenced by a final judgment of conviction," see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9m); and prior involuntary termination of parental rights to another child, provable by court order, see Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10).
¶ 39. Each of these newly-created grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights expressly provides that circuit court orders or judgments constitute proof of unfitness. Similarly, the ground for termination alleged in this case, continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation, is expressly provable by evidence of a court order. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4)(a) and (b). This evinces the legislature's 'manifest intent to enable unfitness determinations to conclusively flow from certain existing court orders that satisfy the statutory requirements. We fail to see how this intent is furthered by requiring the empanelment of a jury to receive evidence of the existence of a court order or judgment about which there is no dispute. The availability of partial summary judgment in the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding where the entire proof of unfitness under the statute is an undisputed court record furthers the legislature's purpose and is consistent with the general rule that the provisions of the code of civil procedure apply to all civil actions and proceedings.5
[24]*24¶ 40. Kelley's argument that applying summary judgment at the unfitness phase of a TPR case violates due process is not well-developed. Its premise seems to be that there is a constitutional right to fact-finding by a jury in all TPR cases, even where the facts of unfitness are undisputed.6 This appears also to be the premise of Elizabeth W, although the court of appeals did not apply the Supreme Court's three-part test for determining what process is constitutionally due in TPR cases. In Santosky, the Supreme Court held:
[T]he nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of the "three distinct factors" specified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): the private interest affected by the proceeding; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting the use of the challenged procedure.
Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754.
¶ 41. Applying this test here, we reiterate that the private interest affected by a TPR proceeding is un[25]*25questionably very strong. However, the remaining two factors in the three-factor test weigh heavily against a conclusion that a jury trial is constitutionally required in TPR cases.
¶ 42. The risk of error in applying partial summary judgment at the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding where the facts of unfitness are undisputed is extremely low. The grounds for unfitness most likely to form the basis of a successful motion for partial summary judgment in a TPR case are those that are sustainable on proof of court order or judgment of conviction, the reliability of which is generally readily apparent and conceded. Furthermore, as we have noted, a finding of unfitness, is only the first of two steps in the process. A finding of unfitness — whether on fact-finding by the court or jury where the facts are disputed or on partial summary judgment where the facts are undisputed — does not mandate termination of parental rights, nor does it foreclose the parent's opportunity to present evidence and argue against termination at the dispositional hearing.
¶ 43. Finally, the countervailing governmental interest in avoiding pointless jury trials where there is nothing to try is substantial. Jury trials are expensive and time-consuming. Parental rights termination cases generally require the participation of at least three publicly-financed attorneys (the guardian ad litem, and the attorneys for the county and the parent), as well as the circuit court judge, court staff, and jurors. Elizabeth W's. bright-line prohibition of summary judgment in TPR cases appears to require the empanelment of a jury to listen to evidence even when it is a foregone conclusion that a directed verdict is the only possible outcome. To mandate a jury trial where the parent does [26]*26not dispute the facts regarding unfitness alleged in the petition is a complete waste of judicial resources.
¶ 44. Accordingly, although the private interest at stake is fundamental, we conclude that due process does not mandate a jury trial in the unfitness phase of a TPR case. The jury trial right in TPR cases is statutory only, and is therefore subject to the provisions of the code of civil procedure, including summary judgment procedure as specified in Wis. Stat. § 802.08. Due process requires a hearing, Stanley, 405 U.S. at 649, and clear and convincing proof of unfitness, Santosky, 455 U.S. at 747-48, and summary judgment procedure under Wis. Stat. § 802.08 accommodates both. Elizabeth Ws broad prohibition against the use of summary judgment in the unfitness phase of a TPR case was statutorily and constitutionally unwarranted, and we therefore overrule it.7
[27]*27¶ 45. We also conclude that partial summary judgment was properly granted in this case. The guardian ad litem's motion was presented, somewhat irregularly, as "Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Directed Verdict," but the motion was legally sufficient as a motion for summary judgment, and was accompanied by an affidavit of the guardian ad litem attaching the unmodified Brown County Circuit Court order denying Kelley placement and visitation. Kelley was given an opportunity to respond to the motion. She filed a written response, which the court considered and discussed with the parties at the October 15, 2001, hearing. Judge VanDeHey postponed ruling on the [28]*28motion until the November 2, 2001, hearing, at which Kelley was present, represented by counsel, and was again given an opportunity to be heard.
¶ 46. At the November 2 hearing, Kelley conceded that there was no dispute of fact regarding the grounds alleged in the petition — that she had been denied physical placement and visitation by court order and that the court order had remained in effect, unmodified, for more than one year. The circuit court took judicial notice of the Brown County Circuit Court order and concluded that it satisfied the statutory elements necessary for unfitness under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). Although the written order that was entered after the hearing used the terminology of a directed verdict, we conclude it is sufficient as an order granting partial summary judgment of unfitness.
¶ 47. Kelley makes a fallback argument that summary judgment was inappropriate because she was entitled to present evidence regarding her reasons for having failed to comply with the conditions for reestablishing visitation set forth in the Brown County judgment. She cites State v. Fredrick H., 2001 WI App 141, 246 Wis. 2d 215, 630 N.W.2d 734, in which the court of appeals held that such evidence was relevant at the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding, and, further, that a circuit court's refusal to allow such evidence at the grounds phase deprived the parents of the right "to meaningfully participate in the termination proceedings." Id., ¶ 13.
¶ 48. Fredrick H. is no longer valid in light of our decision in Julie A.B. The court in Fredrick H. relied on language from B.L.J. v. Polk County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 163 Wis. 2d 90, 470 N.W.2d 914 (1991), which described the unfitness phase of a TPR proceeding as encompass[29]*29ing an intermediate determination by the circuit court regarding whether the degree of parental unfitness was sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. Frederick H., 246 Wis. 2d 215, ¶ 14 (quoting B.L.J., 163 Wis. 2d at 104). The court in Frederick H. held that mitigating evidence regarding parental efforts to regain visitation was relevant to this discretionary determination regarding the degree of parental unfitness. Id., ¶¶ 15-17. However, in Julie A.B., we expressly withdrew the language from B.L.J. that imposed this intermediate degree-of-unfitness determination. Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 17, ¶¶ 36-37. Frederick H. is thus inconsistent with Julie A.B., and we therefore overrule it.8
[30]*30B. Continuance to Consult on Substitution of Judge
¶ 49. Kelley also contends she is entitled to a new hearing because the circuit court failed to inform her, at the initial hearing, that she had a right under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5) to a continuance to consult with counsel regarding substitution of judge. Kelley relies on Burnett County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kimberly M.W., 181 Wis. 2d 887, 892, 512 N.W.2d 227 (Ct. App. 1994), which in turn relied on language in M.W. and I. W., 116 Wis. 2d at 441, which appears to impose such a duty on the circuit courts.
¶ 50. Parties to TPR proceedings may request a continuance of the initial hearing to consult with counsel about judicial substitution. Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5). However, the circuit court does not have an affirmative duty to advise parties of this right. Wis. Stat. § 48.422(1).
¶ 51. As is pertinent here, Wis. Stat. § 48.422 provides:
Hearing on the petition. (1) ... At the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights the court shall determine whether any party wishes to contest the petition and inform the parties of their rights under sub. (4) and s. 48.423 [relating to persons alleging their paternity].
(4) Any party who is necessary to the proceeding or whose rights may he affected by an order terminating parental rights shall be granted a jury trial upon request if the request is made before the end of the initial hearing on the petition.
(5) Any nonpetitioning party, including the child, shall he granted a continuance of the hearing for the purpose [31]*31of consulting with an attorney on the request for a jury trial or concerning a request for the substitution of a judge.
Wis. Stat. § 48.422. In M.W and I.W., this court broadly construed Wis. Stat. § 48.422 as follows:
The statutory direction is unequivocal: A parent has the right to representation in court unless there is a waiver; and, in any case, the trial court has the duty to make a full explication of the statutory rights — the right to representation, the right to a continuance, the right to request a jury trial, and the right to request a substitution of judge.
M.W and I.W., 116 Wis. 2d at 441.
¶ 52. M.W. and I.W. was mistaken that the statute is unequivocal in this regard. In fact, as Court of Appeals Judge Lundsten noted in his concurrence in this case, the statute unequivocally does not direct the circuit court to inform parties of the right to a continuance to consult with counsel regarding judicial substitution. Kelley H., 263 Wis. 2d 241, ¶ 48. M.W. and I.W. did not purport to impose such a duty as a constitutional requirement or as a matter of judicial administration. We withdraw this language from M.W and I.W.; the circuit court does not have a statutory duty to inform a party in a TPR case of the right to a continuance to consult with counsel about judicial substitution.9 The circuit court's failure to do so here was not error.
[32]*32¶ 53. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that partial summary judgment may be granted in the unfitness phase of a TPR case where the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the asserted grounds for unfitness under Wis. Stat. § 48.415, and, taking into consideration the heightened burden of proof specified in Wis. Stat. § 48.31(1) and required by due process, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We further conclude that Wis. Stat. § 48.422(1) does not impose upon the circuit court a duty to advise parties of the right under Wis. Stat. § 48.422(5) to a continuance to consult with counsel regarding judicial substitution.
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.