COA rejects multiple challenges to TPR and affirms
Monroe County Department of Human Services v. A.S., 2026AP65-66, 4/23/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although A.S. raises multiple challenges to this TPR, COA uniformly finds her arguments unavailing.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
A.S. first argues the evidence was insufficient to prove the County made “reasonable efforts” relevant to the continuing CHIPS ground. (¶8). This is a tough lift, as COA is obligated to affirm “if there is any credible evidence supporting the verdict.” Id. A.S.’s argument consists of only a few sentences, meaning COA could reject the argument as insufficiently developed. (¶9). Opting to reach the merits anyway, COA finds A.S. has ignored the relevant standard of review by using the existence of “conflicting” evidence as a basis for reversal. (¶10). A.S.’s argument regarding the “substantial likelihood” element runs into the same issue. (¶14). Applying the proper standard of review which is highly deferential, COA affirms. Id.
Trial Court’s Evidentiary Decisions
A.S. first claims the circuit erred by admitting the social worker’s notes at the trial under the business records exception, asserting that the social worker did not qualify as a “custodian” of those records for the purpose of this hearsay exception. (¶16). The argument is undeveloped, however, so COA declines to reach the merits. (¶17). And, in any case, COA is satisfied admission of this evidence was also harmless error. (¶18).
A.S. also challenges the circuit court’s decision to admit drug testing results, arguing there was an insufficient chain of custody for this evidence. (¶19). The argument is undeveloped and A.S. forfeited the issue by not objecting below. (¶20).
Juror Conduct
During the trial, one of the jurors interacted with a State’s witness during a break. (¶21). Although the contact seemed innocuous and incidental, the circuit court agreed to remove the juror at A.S.’s request. (¶22). On appeal, A.S. now argues that the circuit court erred by not questioning the remaining jurors to determine if this juror had tainted them, as well. (¶24). The argument is undeveloped, however, so COA rejects this challenge, as well. (¶25).
Disposition
Finally, A.S. claims the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition, although she concedes the court considered all six required factors. (¶28). Although she makes a number of argumentative assertions, her arguments are once again undeveloped and fail to overcome the standard of review.