Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.
The department filed a CHIPS petition in 2021 alleging that Luke was a child in need of protection or services. Luke’s mother had refused to allow him to return to her home, and the department did not believe that placement in Luke’s father’s home was suitable due to sexual abuse of his daughter three years earlier. The circuit court thereafter entered a CHIPS dispositional order that required Luke’s father to participate in counseling, complete a psychosexual evaluation, and to comply with treatment recommendations.(¶2).
In 2024, Luke filed a request to change placement to his father’s home, and the circuit court held a hearing. The doctor who had evaluated Luke’s father, the social worker assigned to Luke’s case, and Luke testified at the multi-day hearing. (¶¶3-12). The doctor and the department’s main concern was the risk Luke’s father posed due to his history of sexually assaulting his daughter and failure to participate in sex offender treatment. Luke wished to return home with his father. The court denied Luke’s request, highlighting the doctor’s testimony and its “two primary concerns” that Luke could not be ruled out as a victim of his father’s sexual assault(s), and making sure that Luke would “not grow up to do what [his father] did . . . .” (¶12).
Luke argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because it gave insufficient weight to the evidence he presented and to his desire to return to his father’s home, given his age and maturity. (¶14). A circuit court may order a change of placement or trial reunification for a child subject to a CHIPS dispositional order where, in its discretion, it determines that doing so is in the child’s best interest. Tina B. v. Richard H.,
2014 WI App 123, ¶45, 359 Wis. 2d 204, 857 N.W.2d 432; Wis. Stat. § 48.357. This standard of review is highly deferential, and COA determines that the circuit court expressly considered Luke’s testimony, and gave his wishes “a lot of weight[.]” However, the court found that the concerns about Luke’s father outweighed Luke’s wishes. (¶15). Thus, COA concludes that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and affirms. (¶16).