COA affirms TPR dispositional order
State v. R.R.L., 2026AP956, 7/1/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Roger” contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition because, in determining that termination was in the best interest of his son, “Marcus,” the court failed to consider relevant facts regarding Marcus’s relationships with other family members even though such relationships may not have been substantial. COA affirms.
Roger challenges the circuit court’s consideration of WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(c), “Whether 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.” (¶2). As termination is a discretionary decision for the circuit court, and Roger concedes that the court considered the factors required by the statute, COA affirms.
COA also considers Roger’s argument that the language of the statute that the court is “not … limited to” considering only the enumerated factors means that the court should consider additional evidence presented at the hearing. (¶3). It concludes that the circuit court “did consider the presented evidence related to Marcus’s relationships with extended family members—in short, that Marcus had no relationships with extended family members.” (¶4). The evidence Roger presented was that Marcus had extended family with whom he could develop relationships in the future, but the court concluded that it needed to focus on Marcus’s best interests “today.” (¶¶5-7). Thus, COA “conclude[s] the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in terminating Roger’s parental rights to Marcus, as it gave appropriate consideration to the only matter Roger complains of on appeal.” (¶9).