LegalFix

48.243 Basic rights: duty of intake worker.

WI Stat § 48.243 (2019) (N/A)
Copy with citation
Copy as parenthetical citation

48.243 Basic rights: duty of intake worker.

(1) Before conferring with the parent, expectant mother or child during the intake inquiry, the intake worker shall personally inform parents, expectant mothers and children 12 years of age or older who are the focus of an inquiry regarding the need for protection or services that the referral may result in a petition to the court and of all of the following:

(a) What allegations could be in the petition.

(b) The nature and possible consequences of the proceedings.

(c) The right to remain silent and the fact that silence of any party may be relevant.

(d) The right to confront and cross-examine those appearing against them.

(e) The right to counsel under s. 48.23.

(f) The right to present and subpoena witnesses.

(g) The right to a jury trial.

(h) The right to have the allegations of the petition proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(3) If the child or expectant mother has not had a hearing under s. 48.21 or 48.213 and was not present at an intake conference under s. 48.24, the intake worker shall inform the child, parent, guardian and legal custodian, or expectant mother, as appropriate, of the basic rights provided under this section. The notice shall be given verbally, either in person or by telephone, and in writing. This notice shall be given so as to allow the child, parent, guardian, legal custodian or adult expectant mother sufficient time to prepare for the plea hearing. This subsection does not apply to cases of informal disposition under s. 48.245.

(4) This section does not apply if the child or expectant mother was present at a hearing under s. 48.21 or 48.213.

History: 1977 c. 354; 1979 c. 300; 1985 a. 311; 1987 a. 27; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 35, 292.

A CHIPS proceeding is not a criminal proceeding within the meaning of the 5th amendment. Miranda warnings are not required to be given to the CHIPS petition subject, even though the individual is in custody and subject to interrogation, in order for the subject's statements to be admissible. State v. Thomas J.W. 213 Wis. 2d 264, 570 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0506.

LegalFix

Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.

LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.

The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.

You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.

The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.

Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

We have updated our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures.
48.243 Basic rights: duty of intake worker.