State of Wisconsin v. S.L.L., 2024AP551, 8/26/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
S.L.L. failed to preserve an objection to a protective order as to the identity of the proposed adoptive resource, leading to a quick affirmance from COA.
“Steve” raises two challenges to this TPR, neither of which get much traction. First, he “argues that WIS. STAT. § 48.426, the statutory scheme controlling the best interests determination in a termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding, violates procedural due process by not requiring the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence—or alternatively, by a preponderance of the evidence—that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.” (¶1). However, that issue is now conclusively resolved by SCOW’s decision in H.C. (¶2).
Second, he “argues that the circuit court’s entry of a protective order shielding the proposed adoptive resource’s identity at the dispositional hearing constituted an erroneous exercise of discretion and violated Steve’s due process rights because it compromised his ability to introduce evidence and present a defense.” (¶1). However, “Steve’s failure to timely object or raise the issue at or prior to the dispositional hearing forfeits the issue.” (¶19). Accordingly, COA affirms.