State v. S.N., 2023AP2366-67, 2/27/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Sally’s” challenge to the court’s discretionary termination order fails, as the circuit court’s order was supported by evidence in the record.
“Sally” attacks the circuit court’s discretionary order terminating her parental rights by first focusing on the court’s consideration of her “substantial relationship” with the children at issue as required by § 48.426(3)(c). (¶12). With respect to the older child, Amanda, the court found there was a “strong” but not “substantial” relationship between mother and daughter. (¶14). Thus, while there could be “some” harm to Amanda caused by severing the legal relationship, the court was “confident” the younger child, Terry, would not be harmed due to his age. (Id.). The court further concluded that any harm to Amanda could be mitigated by therapy. (Id.). While Sally challenges these findings by pointing to evidence in the record which could have supported a different finding, COA is duty-bound to affirm as the fact that “some record testimony exists that could support a different finding is not enough to render the circuit court’s exercise of discretion erroneous.” (¶16).
Likewise, while Sally claims that her children also have a good relationship with a great-grandfather, the circuit court concluded otherwise at the dispositional hearing and the record supports that finding, as well. (¶17).
Finally, Sally also lobs a challenge at the court’s consideration of the children’s wishes under § 48.426(3)(d). (¶19). Here, however, the circuit court properly concluded, based on the evidence that these children (ages 2 and 4) were too young to express their wishes. (Id.).
