Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.
Taylor County sought to terminate Adam’s parental rights to his four children – Alice, Sharon, Theo, and Daryl. As grounds for TPR, the County alleged a continuing need for protection and services and failure to assume parental responsibility. See Wis. Stats. § 48.415(2)(a),(6)(a).
At trial, the County presented evidence that it became aware in 2021 of “multiple incidents” when two of Adam’s children, who were ages 3 and 6, were “wandering in the streets unsupervised.” (¶ 7). Adam was released from prison in May 2022 after he served his initial confinement for possessing THC and battery but was revoked and returned to custody from May 2022 to September 2022 and again in November 2022. (¶ 9). A case worker for the County testified that her primary concern regarding Adam’s parental fitness was “his lack of availability to his children due to his incarceration, his criminal behavior, and his alcohol and drug use.” (¶ 9).
Alice and Sharon’s foster mother testified that they were placed in her home in March 2022 and resided with her since then. The foster said she made all medical appointments for the children, was involved in their schooling, and never saw Adam at a parent-teacher conference. (¶ 10). Theo and Daryl’s foster mother testified that they were placed in her home in March 2022 and resided with her since then. She said Adam did not attend parent-teacher conferences. (¶ 11).
A second case worker for the County testified that Adam “was doing the best he could” assuming parental responsibility, but his availability was limited because he was incarcerated. She said Adam called her once to check on the children and called the foster families once or twice for updates on the children. (¶ 12).
Adam, who was in prison at the time of trial in 2024, testified that he had been incarcerated since 2022. He said he was only allowed two phone calls per week, which he consistently used to speak to his children. (¶ 13).
The jury found both grounds to terminate Adam’s parental rights, and the circuit court determined that termination was in the best interests of the children. (¶ 2).
Adam argued on appeal that the County did not prove grounds for termination at trial. He cited evidence at trial that he assumed parental responsibility for his children when he was not incarcerated, that he was their principal caregiver until he was incarcerated, and he made sacrifices for his children. (¶ 14).
Although the Court did not dispute Adam’s characterization of the evidence, it considered Adam’s appeal to require the Court to reweigh the evidence presented to the jury, which was beyond its authority. (¶ 14). Given the standard of review requiring the Court to sustain a verdict if there is any credible evidence to support it, the Court affirmed the orders terminating Adam’s parental rights: “That Adam presented countervailing evidence or that there was evidence to support the inference that Adam assumed parental responsibility for the children does not negate the fact that the . . . evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Adam failed to assume parental responsibility for the children.” (¶ 9). The Court found clear and convincing evidence that “Adam had minimal contact with the children during his periods of incarceration (much due to his acts leading to his repeated incarceration), he had no contact with their schools or health care providers after they were removed from his care, and he neglected to provide care or support for the children.” (¶ 15).
Because the Court found sufficient evidence to prove Adam failed to assume parental responsibility, it did not address whether the evidence was sufficient that the children were in continuing need of protection or services. (¶ 4).