COA affirms TPR default judgment entered after one missed hearing
State v. M.R., 2026AP1742 & 2026AP1743, 10/20/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA holds that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it found “Margo” in default when she missed one court appearance and affirms orders terminating her parental rights.
The State filed petitions to terminate Margo’s parental rights to her two children alleging three grounds: (1) abandonment; (2) continuing CHIPS; and (3) failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶2). Margo was in custody at the time, and she appeared at multiple hearings until her release. Prior to her release from custody, the circuit court reminded Margo multiple times to appear in person for all future court dates and to stay in touch with her attorney and case manager. The court also explained that if she failed to do so, she may be found in default. (¶3). The court excused Margo’s appearance at the first hearing after her release from custody because her attorney represented that she was in the hospital and had attempted to appear by video. (¶5). However, after Margo failed to appear at the next hearing and had not had contact with her lawyer since her discharge from the hospital, the court found her in default. (¶¶6-7).
On appeal, Margo argues that the circuit court erred by entering default judgment because a single missed court appearance and failure to stay in contact cannot be considered egregious under the law. (¶13). COA disagrees, highlighting that Margo only appeared while in custody, was not in communication with her attorney unless she was in custody or in the hospital, and then took no action to promptly address her default in the circuit court. (¶15). In addition, the circuit court explicitly found that Margo’s conduct was egregious. (¶16). As to her failure to maintain contact with her attorney, COA questions whether Margo could have done more, like using a relative’s phone to call. (¶17).
Thus, COA concludes that these reasons are adequately supported by the record, the circuit court applied the proper law, and the court reached a reasonable conclusion based on the application of the law to the facts. (¶18).