COA rejects challenge to TPR dispositional order and affirms
State v. L.Z., 2025AP2731-32, 2/17/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although L.Z. tries to capitalize on certain statements in the court’s oral ruling as giving a foothold for her appellate challenge, the standard of review means the argument attacking a discretionary decision goes nowhere.
On appeal from an order terminating her parental rights, L.Z. argues that the circuit court “inadequately considered whether severance of the parent-child relationships would be harmful to the children when it determined that termination was in the children’s best interests.” (¶1). “L.Z.’s argument can essentially be boiled down to an assertion that, because the circuit court chose to take C.M.’s commitment into account—that she would maintain a relationship between the children and their parents so long as it was appropriate, a commitment that was in no way legally enforceable—the court failed to adequately consider the harm that severing the parental relationship would have on [the children].” (¶11). Read in context, however, COA disagrees with L.Z.’s interpretation of the court’s comment. (¶12).
Moreover, “there is also nothing in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3) that prohibits a court, in considering the best interests of the child, from considering a commitment made by a foster parent stating that they will continue to maintain a relationship between the parent and the child. In fact, the statute specifically states that the court, in making the decision whether to terminate the parent’s rights, is not limited to the factors enumerated therein. Sec. 48.426(3).” (¶15).
COA therefore affirms.