COA rejects challenges to TPR dispositional order
Brown County Health &Human Services v. J.L., 2026AP176, 5/1/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Julie” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition as to two factors of consideration. However, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.
Specifically, Julie argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it concluded that termination of her parental rights was in her daughter, Jamie’s best interests by failing to properly consider whether Jamie had a substantial relationship with Julie and whether Jamie had a substantial relationship with her biological siblings, both as required by WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(c). (¶10). Subsection (c) provides that the court must consider “[w]hether the child has substantial relationships with the parent or other family members, and whether it would be harmful to the child to sever these relationships.”
Julie contends that the circuit court failed to consider whether she had a substantial relationship with the child, focusing instead on whether she had a substantial parental relationship with Jamie. (¶13). COA does not find this argument persuasive, as the substantial relationship and substantial parental relationship standards are related and inform one another when the person in question is the child’s parent. (¶14). Regardless, COA finds the court considered both questions and found that Julie did not have any substantial relationship with Jamie due to the length of the separation between them. (¶15).
Julie separately argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to assess whether Jamie had a substantial relationship with two biological siblings, although Julie’s parental rights to those siblings had already been terminated. (¶17). COA also finds this argument unpersuasive because the statute “directs focus on the legal severance resulting from a termination of parental rights and requires courts to assess the harmful effect of this legal severance on the emotional and psychological attachments the child has formed with his or her birth family.” See State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶26, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475. “Thus, terminating Julie’s parental rights to Jamie did not result in the legal severance of Jamie’s relationships with these siblings—that had already happened.” (¶18).
In sum, COA concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found that TPR was in Jamie’s best interests, even considering its impact on Jamie’s relationships with Julie and “other [biological] family members.” (¶20).