COA finds evidence supports TPR dispositional order and affirms
Marquette Department of Human Services v. B.L.J., 2026AP400-402, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another decision applying the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA rejects the appellant’s arguments which ignore that standard of review.
B.L.J. “does not dispute that the circuit court expressly addressed each of the six factors in the nonexclusive list that it was required to consider.” (¶8). Instead, she simply disagrees with the court’s ultimate decision, asserting that there was only one reasonable outcome, that of non-termination. (Id.). She therefore identifies other evidence in the record which she claims supports a different outcome. (Id.). But, as COA reminds the reader, that isn’t the proper standard of review. (Id.). COA addresses each statutory factor in turn and finds that, despite some of B.L.J.’s criticisms, the lower court’s findings on each prong were reasonable. It therefore affirms in a fact-dependent decision.
The Court of Appeals appears to issue one of these decisions at least weekly and, based on our institutional memory, we can’t recall a parent ever winning one. The standard is nearly insurmountable but, despite our brief treatment of the issue, we have to give B.L.J. credit for at least trying to push this particular rock uphill.