Defense win: COA upholds jury’s verdict in favor of TPR respondent
J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.
J.R.P., the mother of the child, filed this TPR action against the father, W.P.M. alleging abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶1). The jury rejected both theories and found in favor of the father. (Id.).
Following the adverse jury verdict, J.R.P. asked the circuit court to override the jury’s verdict with respect to the abandonment ground. (¶18). She wanted the judge to change the jury’s answer with respect to one of the questions on the special verdict: “‘whether the father had good cause for having failed to communicate about [the child] with the person having physical custody during’ the period when he did also did not visit or communicate with the child.” (Id.). The mother’s motion filed in the trial court argued “there was no evidence to sustain the jury’s ‘yes’ answer to this question, and asked the circuit court to change it to ‘no.'” (Id.). The court denied the motion. (Id.).
On appeal, the standard of review for a request to change a jury answer is extremely deferential. Essentially, COA finds it can only reverse if the evidence is “in conflict with the uniform course of nature or with fully established or conceded facts.” (¶22). Here, reviewing the entire record, COA is satisfied that the petitioner cannot meet this extremely high burden and declines her invitation to reweigh the evidence on appeal. (¶31). Moreover, COA also rejects her argument about the proper definition of “good cause” as undeveloped. (¶36).