to § 803.09, Stats. While the court acknowledged that there was no different procedure for intervention set out in ch. 48, Stats., see David S., 179 Wis. 2d at 143-44, 507 N.W.2d at 104-05, it nonetheless recognized that § 48.42(2), Stats., did set out explicit requirements for who must be notified in a TPR proceeding. The court therefore concluded that this section of The Children's Code controlled who may intervene. See David S., 179 Wis. 2d at 143-44, 507 N.W.2d at 104-05. The decision in David S. thus reveals that we are to look not only for distinct differences in procedure, but also to whether the procedures established in the different chapters are consistent. See id.; see also Waukesha County Dep't of Social Servs. v. C.E.W., 124 Wis. 2d 47, 53-54, 368 N.W.2d 47, 50-51 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Our examination of § 48.293, Stats., reveals
holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to  3582c2 proceedings holding that the ch 805 stats rule governing objections to jury instructions applies to ch 48 proceedings because there is no provision in the childrens code suggesting otherwise holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that rule 60b6 only applies in extraordinary circumstances suggesting that the party is faultless in the delay holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections