COA rejects sufficiency challenge to reasonable efforts requirement in continuing CHIPS TPR appeal
State v. S.G., 2026AP1078, 7/28/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Stephanie” appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “David.” She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to both of the grounds for termination alleged–continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. COA affirms.
David was removed from Stephanie’s care shortly after his birth, and was later found to be a child in need of protection or services. (¶2). About one year later, the state filed a petition to terminate Stephanie’s parental rights, alleging as grounds continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶3). At trial, the circuit court heard testimony from Stephanie’s three case managers, Stephanie, and the foster parent. (¶4). It then found that the state had proven both grounds and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated Stephanie’s parental rights. (¶10).
As to continuing CHIPS, Stephanie challenges the evidence supporting the “reasonable efforts” element only; that is, whether the state made a reasonable effort to provide her the court-ordered services. (¶14). She argues that the efforts were not reasonable because the state failed to accommodate her cognitive limitations. Specifically, she claims she had to diagnose and explain her needs to her service providers because the state failed to share with them the report from her psychological evaluation. While the record is unclear as to whether the report was given to all of Stephanie’s service providers, COA concludes that regardless, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the state accommodated Stephanie’s cognitive limitations when providing services because Stephanie was in a specialized program for adults with cognitive delays. The program’s services included housing assistance, education and career services, a financial payee, and individualized therapy which, for Stephanie, was focused on helping her with identifying safe relationships, domestic violence, and anger management. The state also specifically tailored its referrals around Stephanie’s limitations. (¶¶15-16). COA also rejects Stephanie’s argument that the state should have given her new referrals after she failed to make improvements. (¶¶17-18).
Finally, because COA concludes that the evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that the state made a reasonable effort to provide Stephanie with the court-ordered services it does not analyze her arguments as to failure to assume parental responsibility.