COA upholds default order despite some “questionable” aspects of case, finds court properly exercised discretion at dispo
State v. S.B.T., 2026AP1890, 11/4/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although S.B.T. presents a number of mitigating facts to excuse her nonappearance, COA holds the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and rejects her challenges to the disposition.
According to COA: “Proceedings below were not regular. S.B.T. did not show up for trial on whether grounds existed for termination. Her attorney located her and brought her to court late, but upon arrival, S.B.T. did not seem lucid and the circuit court ordered a drug test. A snow emergency then required adjournment to the next day. When the parties reconvened, S.B.T. was again absent and her drug test came back positive for cocaine. The court found her in default.” (¶2).
On appeal, COA quickly dispatches with S.B.T.’s argument that the court erred in defaulting her and refusing to vacate the default: “Default is an appropriate sanction for egregious conduct, and the circuit court could properly conclude that S.B.T.’s repeated failure to comply with court directives to attend her hearings—she had missed others even before her absence at trial—met this standard.” (¶4). While S.B.T. argues that she faced numerous obstacles including homelessness and drug addiction, COA holds that the circuit court already considered and rejected those arguments and that its ruling is entitled to deference on appeal. (¶5). While COA recognizes that the record is a little ambiguous as to whether S.B.T. received notice of the rescheduled hearing, it ultimately credits the circuit court with an “implicit finding” that S.B.T. received proper notice based on its reading of the overall record. (¶6).
And, while COA is also clearly troubled by other “questionable aspects” of the case, including a delayed prove-up and her attorney’s failure to adequately participate in the matter following the default, those aspects of the case are not challenged here. (¶7).
Finally, as to the dispositional order, S.B.T. argues that the circuit court’s order “contains too many open questions to support the circuit court’s determination that termination of her parental rights” was in the child’s best interests. (¶8). Specifically, the court acknowledged “open questions regarding the placement” of the child’s sister and, for that reason, “ordered continuation of K.R.’s successful foster placement under a guardianship.” (Id.). COA finds there is nothing improper about the court’s acknowledgement of uncertainty on this point and finds that the reasoning is otherwise “sound and evinces careful attention to the applicable statutory factors . . . .” (¶9).