In Interest of KKC, 422 N.W.2d 142 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
In Interest of KKC, 422 N.W.2d 142 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
85 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Alan S. Johnson (wis, 2023-05-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Alan S. Johnson (6×) also: Cited "see"
Wis. · 2023 · confidence medium
Additionally, the court of appeals noted that Ritchie was not implicated because the criminal defendant who sought release of the department's files "ha[d] not moved the trial court in his criminal cases to make an in camera review of the agency records." Id. at 510.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Courtney F. v. Ramiro M.C. (4×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
As noted, this statute, like Wis. Stat. § 48.396 covering juvenile court records, bars inspection or disclosure of agency records except "by order of the court." DeLeu, 143 Wis. 2d at 509-10.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Interest of Christopher D. (2×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Id. at 511, 422 N.W.2d at 144.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Speese (2×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
K.K.C., 143 Wis. 2d at 509-10, 422 N.W.2d at 143.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gagne
N.H. · 1992 · confidence medium
App. 3d 58 , —, 584 N.E.2d 980, 992 (1991) (defendant must “sufficiently demonstrate that the requested records are material and relevant to the witness’s credibility”); State v. Hutchinson, 597 A.2d 1344, 1347 (Me. 1991) (court must find that records “may be necessary for the determination of any issue” before the court); Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54, 82 , 602 A.2d 1247, 1261 (1992) (defendant must show “some relationship . . . between the charges, the information sought, and the likelihood that relevant information will be obtained as a result of reviewing the records”); Commonw…
examined Cited "see" State v. Patrick J. Lynch (4×)
Wis. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See K.K.C., 143 Wis. 2d at 511, 422 N.W.2d at 144 (information sought was confidential); S.H., 159 Wis. 2d at 736, 465 N.W.2d at 240-41 (information sought was protected under sec. 905.04, Stats., and was in the possession of a private counseling center).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Patrick J. Lynch (2×)
Wis. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See 27 No. 2011AP2680-CR K.K.C., 143 Wis. 2d at 511, 422 N.W.2d at 144 (information sought was confidential); S.H., 159 Wis. 2d at 736, 465 N.W.2d at 240-41 (information sought was protected under sec. 905.04, Stats., and was in the possession of a private counseling center).
discussed Cited "see" State v. SHIFFRS
Wis. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See K.K.C., 143 Wis. 2d at 511, 422 N.W.2d at 144 (information sought was confidential); S.H., 159 Wis. 2d at 736, 465 N.W.2d at 240-41 (information sought was protected under sec. 905.04, Stats., and was in the possession of a private counseling center).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Shiffra (2×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See K.K.C., 143 Wis. 2d at 511, 422 N.W.2d at 144 (information sought was confidential); S.H., 159 Wis. 2d at 736, 465 N.W.2d at 240-41 (information sought was protected under sec. 905.04, Stats., and was in the possession of a private counseling center).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN the INTEREST OF K.K.C., K.M., S.M., T.C., D.L.W., and B.W.: ROCK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellant,
v.
Richard R. DeLEU, Respondent. IN the INTEREST OF R.M.L., a person under the age of 18: R.M.L., Appellant, v. Richard R. DeLEU, Respondent.
87-0266, 87-0334.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Feb 18, 1988.
422 N.W.2d 142
Gartzke, P.J., Eich and Sundby.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

[*509] For the appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of David Heitzman of Janesville, and Jerome M. Elliott, of Beloit.

For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Richard D. Martin, assistant state public defender.

Before Gartzke, P.J., Eich and Sundby, JJ.

SUNDBY, J.

The Rock County Department of Social Services appeals orders requiring that it deliver all of its files concerning seven juveniles to the trial judge in two criminal prosecutions in which Richard R. DeLeu, Jr., is charged with sexually assaulting the juveniles. The orders require the trial judge in the criminal cases to review the files in camera to determine what portions of such files should be released to DeLeu for his use in defense against the criminal charges. We conclude that sec. 48.78(2)(a), Stats., requires that the juvenile court, not the criminal court, exercise its discretion to determine whether the confidential records of the department shall be disclosed or made available for inspection. We therefore reverse.

Section 48.78(2)(a), Stats., provides:

No agency may make available for inspection or disclose the contents of any record kept or information received about an individual in its care or legal custody, except as provided under sub.
[*510] (3) or s. 48.432, 48.433, 48.93, or 48.981(7) or by order of the court. (Emphasis added.)

The parties agree that "the court" as used in sec. 48.78(2)(a), Stats., refers to the juvenile court. Section 48.02(2m) provides: "'Court,' when used without further qualification, means the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under this chapter." The parties also agree that an order of the juvenile court under sec. 48.78(2)(a) is discretionary.

DeLeu argues that the juvenile courts exercised their discretion when they ordered the department to deliver its files to the criminal trial judge to make the in camera review. He claims that the juvenile courts considered the interest of the juveniles and the public in maintaining the confidentiality of the records, DeLeu's interest in a fair trial, and the ability of the criminal trial judge to recognize information relevant to DeLeu's defense. DeLeu contends that the judge who will preside over his criminal trials is in a better position than are the juvenile court judges to balance the competing interests of confidentiality and disclosure.

[1]

"Discretion" contemplates a process of reasoning which yields a conclusion based on logic and founded upon proper legal standards. Marriage of Mathewson v. Mathewson, 135 Wis. 2d 411, 416, 400 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Ct. App. 1986). Discretion does not contemplate that a court will delegate to another court the necessary process of reasoning.

[2]

We conclude that the juvenile courts did not exercise their discretion under sec. 48.78(2)(a), Stats. By ordering the department to deliver its files to the[*511] criminal trial judge for that judge to determine which, if any, of the agency's files would be disclosed to DeLeu or made available for his inspection, the juvenile courts delegated the exercise of their discretion. Since the juvenile courts failed to exercise their discretion, the orders must be reversed.

DeLeu contends that if the trial judge in his criminal cases does not review the agency's files, he will be denied his constitutional rights to confrontation, compulsory process and due process. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. —, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987). Ritchie holds that a criminal defendant is entitled to an in camera review by the trial court of confidential records if those records are material to the defendant's defense. Id. at —, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 59.

DeLeu has not moved the trial court in his criminal cases to make an in camera review of the agency records. If he does so, Ritchie, supra, establishes that he is entitled to such a review by the trial court, provided he makes a preliminary showing that the files contain evidence material to his defense.

DeLeu's motion at present is directed to the juvenile court under sec. 48.78(2)(a), Stats. Only the juvenile court may issue an inspection or disclosure order under that section.

By the Court.—Orders reversed.