State v. T.H.-M., 2024AP1271-1273, District I, 10/29/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another dense and fact-specific opinion, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the parent was unfit and rejects T.H.-M.’s argument that the circuit court improperly weighed the evidence at disposition.
“Tiffany” appeals the verdict after a court trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support two grounds for termination–continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶12). The review is highly deferential, however, and Tiffany’s attempts to chip away at the overall testimony fails in light of COA’s review of the overall record; her granular criticisms are overcome by the totality of the evidence at issue on appeal. (¶¶15-29). Likewise, her attack on the court’s discretionary termination decision is also doomed given the standard of review: She concedes that the court considered the requisite factors, but takes issue with the court’s weighing of those factors (and its embodied credibility decisions). The deference owed to the circuit court, however, mandates affirmance. (¶35).
