ANDERSON, P.J.
Darrell A. appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to Amanda A. and Jeremiah A.1 We conclude that § 48.415(8), Stats,, [634]*634does not constitute an ex post facto law, does not violate Darrell's constitutional rights to due process or to equal protection and does not constitute double jeopardy. We further conclude that Darrell did not require a warning pursuant to § 48.356, Stats., and that the trial court did not err when it found Darrell to be an unfit parent after a psychologist failed to conduct a court-ordered examination. We therefore affirm.
Petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) were filed against Darrell on November 25,1992. The petitions alleged that Darrell had abandoned Amanda and Jeremiah, that the children were in need of continuing protection and services, that there had been a continuing denial of visitation rights and that the termination of Darrell's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children.2
[635]*635In 1989, Darrell was convicted of murdering Deborah B., the children's mother. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and was an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution at the time the TPR petitions were filed.
In a memorandum to the trial court filed on March 31, 1993, Grant Thomas, the children's guardian ad litem, at that time, stated that Darrell's "intentional criminal conduct, incarceration, and consequential inability to care for his minor children" are factors which should be considered in determining whether to terminate Darrell's parental rights. In May 1994, Thomas filed a motion to amend the petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights to include the recently enacted statutory provision, §48.415(8), Stats., making the intentional homicide of a parent grounds for termination of parental rights. The trial court subsequently ordered that the petitions be amended to include the provision of § 48.415(8) as grounds for termination.
Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Darrell was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide of Deborah, and that § 48.415(8), Stats., permits the involuntary termination of parental rights under these circumstances. The trial court granted Thomas's motion for summary judgment.3 The [636]*636court then ordered Darrell's parental rights to Amanda and Jeremiah be terminated. Darrell appeals.
Whether § 48.415(8), STATS., as applied to Darrell, constitutes an ex post facto law or multiple punishment for the same crime are questions which require the application of constitutional principles to the facts. This same standard is also applied to the issues of whether the statute violates Darrell's rights to due process and equal protection. We independently determine "from the facts as found by the trial court whether any time-honored constitutional principles were offended" in the present case. See State v. Pheil, 152 Wis. 2d 523, 529, 449 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Ct. App. 1989) (quoted source omitted).
Ex Post Facto Analysis
Darrell argues that the termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., a statute enacted several years after commission of the offense which formed the basis for the termination of his parental rights, constitutes an ex post facto law in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Section § 48.415(8), created by 1993 Wis. Act 235,1, provides:
Intentional homicide of paeent. Intentional homicide of a parent may be established by a showing that a parent of the child has been a victim of first-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.01 or of 2nd-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.05 and that the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated has been convicted of that intentional homicide.
1993 Wis. Act 235,2, provides:
[637]*637Initial applicability. This act first applies to petitions for termination of parental rights under section 48.42(1) of the statutes filed on the effective date [April 23, 1994] of this Section, but does not preclude consideration of a conviction under section 940.01 or 940.05 of the statutes obtained before the effective date of this Section in determining whether to terminate, or to find grounds to terminate, the parental rights of a person under section 48.415(8) of the statutes, as created by this act.
Darrell contends that subsec. (8) changes and inflicts a greater punishment for the intentional homicide of a spouse by adding an additional penalty — the termination of the surviving parent's parental rights.
Initially, we note that "constitutional challenges to a statute must overcome a strong presumption of constitutionality." State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 706, 524 N.W.2d 641, 645 (1994). One attacking a statute on constitutional grounds has the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Wisconsin Bingo Sup. & Equip. Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control Bd., 88 Wis. 2d 293, 301, 276 N.W.2d 716, 719 (1979).
In a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, the court held that an ex post facto law is any law "which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed." Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d at 703, 524 N.W.2d at 644 (quoted source omitted). Keeping this definition in mind, we turn to the language in [638]*638Wisconsin Bingo, 88 Wis. 2d at 305, 276 N.W.2d at 721, which provides:
The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation _[Quoted source omitted.]
We must determine, therefore, whether §48.415(8), Stats., was enacted with the intent of punishing Darrell for murdering Deborah or whether the termination of his parental rights has come about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation.
We conclude that the legislature did not have a punitive intent when it enacted §48.415(8), STATS.; therefore, the statute does not violate the ex post facto clause of either the Wisconsin or the United States Constitution. After reviewing the legislative history of the provision, there is no evidence that the purpose of § 48.415(8) is to punish. Reading the provision in light of the purpose of the entire chapter, the intent of sub-sec. (8) is to provide a child whose parent has been convicted of murdering the other parent with permanent and stable family relationships. See § 48.01(l)(g), STATS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ANDERSON, P.J.
Darrell A. appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to Amanda A. and Jeremiah A.1 We conclude that § 48.415(8), Stats,, [634]*634does not constitute an ex post facto law, does not violate Darrell's constitutional rights to due process or to equal protection and does not constitute double jeopardy. We further conclude that Darrell did not require a warning pursuant to § 48.356, Stats., and that the trial court did not err when it found Darrell to be an unfit parent after a psychologist failed to conduct a court-ordered examination. We therefore affirm.
Petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) were filed against Darrell on November 25,1992. The petitions alleged that Darrell had abandoned Amanda and Jeremiah, that the children were in need of continuing protection and services, that there had been a continuing denial of visitation rights and that the termination of Darrell's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children.2
[635]*635In 1989, Darrell was convicted of murdering Deborah B., the children's mother. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and was an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution at the time the TPR petitions were filed.
In a memorandum to the trial court filed on March 31, 1993, Grant Thomas, the children's guardian ad litem, at that time, stated that Darrell's "intentional criminal conduct, incarceration, and consequential inability to care for his minor children" are factors which should be considered in determining whether to terminate Darrell's parental rights. In May 1994, Thomas filed a motion to amend the petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights to include the recently enacted statutory provision, §48.415(8), Stats., making the intentional homicide of a parent grounds for termination of parental rights. The trial court subsequently ordered that the petitions be amended to include the provision of § 48.415(8) as grounds for termination.
Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Darrell was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide of Deborah, and that § 48.415(8), Stats., permits the involuntary termination of parental rights under these circumstances. The trial court granted Thomas's motion for summary judgment.3 The [636]*636court then ordered Darrell's parental rights to Amanda and Jeremiah be terminated. Darrell appeals.
Whether § 48.415(8), STATS., as applied to Darrell, constitutes an ex post facto law or multiple punishment for the same crime are questions which require the application of constitutional principles to the facts. This same standard is also applied to the issues of whether the statute violates Darrell's rights to due process and equal protection. We independently determine "from the facts as found by the trial court whether any time-honored constitutional principles were offended" in the present case. See State v. Pheil, 152 Wis. 2d 523, 529, 449 N.W.2d 858, 861 (Ct. App. 1989) (quoted source omitted).
Ex Post Facto Analysis
Darrell argues that the termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., a statute enacted several years after commission of the offense which formed the basis for the termination of his parental rights, constitutes an ex post facto law in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Section § 48.415(8), created by 1993 Wis. Act 235,1, provides:
Intentional homicide of paeent. Intentional homicide of a parent may be established by a showing that a parent of the child has been a victim of first-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.01 or of 2nd-degree intentional homicide in violation of s. 940.05 and that the person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated has been convicted of that intentional homicide.
1993 Wis. Act 235,2, provides:
[637]*637Initial applicability. This act first applies to petitions for termination of parental rights under section 48.42(1) of the statutes filed on the effective date [April 23, 1994] of this Section, but does not preclude consideration of a conviction under section 940.01 or 940.05 of the statutes obtained before the effective date of this Section in determining whether to terminate, or to find grounds to terminate, the parental rights of a person under section 48.415(8) of the statutes, as created by this act.
Darrell contends that subsec. (8) changes and inflicts a greater punishment for the intentional homicide of a spouse by adding an additional penalty — the termination of the surviving parent's parental rights.
Initially, we note that "constitutional challenges to a statute must overcome a strong presumption of constitutionality." State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 706, 524 N.W.2d 641, 645 (1994). One attacking a statute on constitutional grounds has the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Wisconsin Bingo Sup. & Equip. Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control Bd., 88 Wis. 2d 293, 301, 276 N.W.2d 716, 719 (1979).
In a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, the court held that an ex post facto law is any law "which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed." Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d at 703, 524 N.W.2d at 644 (quoted source omitted). Keeping this definition in mind, we turn to the language in [638]*638Wisconsin Bingo, 88 Wis. 2d at 305, 276 N.W.2d at 721, which provides:
The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation _[Quoted source omitted.]
We must determine, therefore, whether §48.415(8), Stats., was enacted with the intent of punishing Darrell for murdering Deborah or whether the termination of his parental rights has come about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation.
We conclude that the legislature did not have a punitive intent when it enacted §48.415(8), STATS.; therefore, the statute does not violate the ex post facto clause of either the Wisconsin or the United States Constitution. After reviewing the legislative history of the provision, there is no evidence that the purpose of § 48.415(8) is to punish. Reading the provision in light of the purpose of the entire chapter, the intent of sub-sec. (8) is to provide a child whose parent has been convicted of murdering the other parent with permanent and stable family relationships. See § 48.01(l)(g), STATS. While Darrell must indeed face the unpleasant consequences of the termination of his parental rights as a result of his crime, the intent of the provision is to aid children rather than to further punish convicted murderers.
[639]*639
Due Process Analysis
Next, Darrell argues that the termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., violates his due process rights. He asserts that the state does not have a compelling interest in applying this statute to him and that it is not narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest.
Strict judicial scrutiny is required when certain fundamental rights are affected by governmental action. K.N.K. v. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d 190, 211, 407 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Ct. App. 1987). Darrell correctly states that "a parental rights termination proceeding interferes with a fundamental right." See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754 n.7 (1982). The state's ability to deprive a person of the fundamental liberty to one's children must rest on a consideration that society has a compelling interest in such deprivation. See K.N.K., 139 Wis. 2d at 211, 407 N.W.2d at 291. Additionally, the infringement on such a liberty must be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. -, 113 S. Ct. 1439, 1447 (1993).
We conclude that the termination of Darrell's parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., did not violate his due process rights. The state has a compelling interest in the continuing welfare of its children. See R.D.K v. Sheboygan County Social Servs. Dep't, 105 Wis. 2d 91, 110, 312 N.W.2d 840, 850 (Ct. App. 1981). Section 48.415(8) directly furthers this goal. We further conclude that subsec. (8) is narrowly tailored to achieve the desired goal. Subsection (8) requires that a parent be a victim of first-degree intentional’ homicide or of second-degree intentional homicide and that the [640]*640person whose parental rights are sought to be terminated has been convicted of that intentional homicide.
Equal Protection Analysis
Darrell also argues that termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., violates his right to equal protection. He states that "while there is an interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of children, the classification is both overinclusive and underinclusive in achieving that goal, and is therefore not closely tailored to effectuate that interest."
As we stated previously, when a fundamental interest is involved, we must apply a strict scrutiny test and the state must show a compelling state interest to justify the classification affecting the interest. State ex rel. Strykowski v. Wilkie, 81 Wis. 2d 491, 506-07, 261 N.W.2d 434, 441 (1978). Darrell cites Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978), for the following proposition:
When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.
We conclude that the termination of Darrell's parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), Stats., did not violate his right to equal protection. Darrell states that the statutory classification is the retroactive application of § 48.415(8) to Darrell and others similarly situated. While this statutory classification may interfere with the exercise of Darrell's parental rights, it is supported by the compelling state interest of child wel[641]*641fare in Wisconsin. See R.D.K., 105 Wis. 2d at 110, 312 N.W.2d at 850. Furthermore, § 48.415(8) is closely tailored in its wording to effectuate only that interest.
Double Jeopardy Analysis
Next, Darrell asserts that the termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., constitutes double jeopardy. He states that terminating his parental rights on the basis of his homicide conviction constitutes multiple punishments for the same offense.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to include three separate constitutional protections: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and (3) protection against multiple punishment for the same offense. State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 515, 509 N.W.2d 712, 717, cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2712 (1994). Darrell cites United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), for the proposition that "civil sanctions following a criminal conviction constitute a second punishment for purposes of the prohibition against double jeopardy." The issue pertaining to the present situation can be framed in the same manner as in Halper: Whether the statutory ground authorized by subsec. (8) for the termination of parental rights constitutes a second "punishment" for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis. See id. at 441.
The Court in Halper stated that a violation of the double jeopardy clause's proscription of multiple punishments can only be identified by assessing the character of the actual sanctions imposed on the individual. Id. at 447-48. The Court held that civil [642]*642proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings, may advance both punitive and remedial goals. Id. at 447. "[A] civil as well as a criminal sanction constitutes punishment when the sanction as applied in the individual case serves the goals of punishment."4 Id. at 448.
In the present case, we conclude that § 48.415(8), Stats., does not serve the goals of punishment and, therefore, the use of subsec. (8) as one of the grounds for terminating Darrell's parental rights does not constitute double jeopardy.5 As we stated previously in the ex post facto portion of our discussion, there is no evidence that subsec. (8) of the statute was enacted to punish the convicted murderer. On the contrary, the purpose of subsec. (8), as evidenced by the express legislative purpose of ch. 48, STATS., is to provide children with permanent and stable family relationships. See § 48.01(l)(g), Stats.
[643]*643Applicability of§ 48.356, STATS.
Next, Darrell argues that the termination of his parental rights pursuant to § 48.415(8), STATS., fails to comply- with § 48.356, STATS., "which requires the trial court to inform the parent of any ground for termination under 48.415 which may be applicable." Section 48.356 provides:
(1) Whenever the court orders a child to be placed outside his or her home because the child has been adjudged to be in need of protection or services under s. 48.345, 48.357, 48.363 or 48.365, the court shall orally inform the parent or parents who appear in court of any grounds for termination of parental rights under s. 48.415 which may be applicable and of the conditions necessary for the child to be returned to the home.
(2) In addition to the notice required under sub. (1), any written order which places a child outside the home under sub. (1) shall notify the parent or parents of the information specified under sub. (1).
The County agrees that there is a conflict between the subsections, but argues that Darrell was given warning of any grounds for the termination of his parental rights because at the time the warning was given, sub-sec. (8) did not exist.
When confronted with an apparent conflict between statutes, we will construe sections on the same subject matter to harmonize the provisions and to give each full force and effect. See Bingenheimer v. DHSS, 129 Wis. 2d 100, 107, 383 N.W.2d 898, 901 (1986).
[644]*644We begin our discussion by noting that "the power of the state to terminate the parental relationship is an awesome one, which can only be exercised under proved fácts and procedures which assure that the power is justly exercised." M.W. v. Monroe County Dep't of Human Servs., 116 Wis. 2d 432, 436, 342 N.W.2d 410, 412 (1984). The underlying purpose of the court's duty to warn a parent of "any grounds for termination of parental rights under s. 48.415 which may be applicable" is to give a parent every possible opportunity to remedy the situation. This is illustrated in the warning given to parents which outlines the conditions necessary for the return of the child, and in the language of § 48.356, Stats., itself, which states that at the time that the parents are informed of the grounds for TPR, the court must also inform them of the conditions necessary for the child to be returned to the home.6 Section 48.356(1).
Under subsecs. (1) through (6) of § 48.415, STATS.,7 a parent has the ability to remedy the situation. Therefore, the court must inform the parent of the possible grounds and then give him or her guidance on how the [645]*645children may be returned to the home. Subsection (8) differs from these other grounds in that a homicide cannot be remedied. There is no way for the surviving parent to rehabilitate himself or herself. In such a case, where rehabilitation of the family unit is impossible, we conclude as a matter of law that there is no need for notice under § 48.356, STATS. Notice in this situation would be superfluous. See Village of Menomonee Falls v. Michelson, 104 Wis. 2d 137, 151, 311 N.W.2d 658, 665 (Ct. App. 1981) ("[A] basic rule of statutory construction is to avoid such a construction as would result in any portion of the statute being superfluous."). The harmonizing of the statutes in this manner gives full force and effect to both provisions.
Discretionary Decision
Next, Darrell argues that the trial court erred when it found him to be an unfit parent after it failed to abide by its own order requiring Dr. Allen Hauer "to conduct an examination of [Darrell] in accordance with a stipulation of the parties to determine said examination." Darrell further notes that he was not able to present any evidence with respect to his parenting abilities as a result of the doctor's failure to examine him.
The court's decision not to require an examination of Darrell after Hauer had failed to do so pursuant to court order was within its discretion. We will not reverse such a decision if the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion. See Schultz v. Darlington Mut. Ins. Co., 181 Wis. 2d 646, 656, 511 N.W.2d 879, 883 (1994). We agree with the County and conclude that Darrell has provided no authority, and we can find none, which would require Hauer to evaluate Darrell. [646]*646Hauer examined the children on two separate occasions. Hauer was questioned as follows:
Q: In terms of the Order, it indicates that you were to conduct a psychological examination of [Darrell] to determine whether he has the ability to adequately parent his children. Can you make— Is it true you cannot make that determination because you did not examine [Darrell]?
A: I could not make that determination based upon an examination. I believe I can make an opinion on that based upon my knowledge of the case retrieved from other sources other than direct examination.
Hauer stated that he based his opinion upon his understanding of the history of the case, Darrell's conviction for the murder of the children's mother which occurred in the children's presence and his knowledge of the children's feelings toward Darrell. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding Darrell to be an unfit parent despite the fact that Hauer did not examine Darrell. We further conclude that Darrell was not prejudiced by Hauer's failure to examine him.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.