State v. E.M.A., 2023AP2043-45, 1/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
E.M.A.’s (“Emma’s) challenge to the court’s exercise of discretion at disposition fails and the court of appeals concludes the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Emma’s parental rights to her three children.
After her no contest plea to grounds, Emma’s case proceeded to disposition. It appears that Emma disputed two aspects of the the circuit court’s exercise of discretion: (1) the finding that she did not have a substantial relationship with any of her children and (2) the lack of evidence of the children’s wishes. With regard to the first issue, the court notes that there was evidence supporting Emma’s position, but also evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings. Op., ¶¶9-11. Because the circuit court is free to decide what weight to give the evidence presented at disposition, Emma cannot succeed in her erroneous exercise of discretion claim. Likewise, the court rejects Emma’s argument about the lack of evidence regarding the children’s wishes because evidence was presented that two of the children were too young to express their wishes and evidence was presented that the oldest child “has gone back and forth” regarding the potential adoption. Op., ¶12.
Thus, the court concludes that Emma failed to prove the circuit court erroneously exercised its broad discretion at disposition and affirms the TPR orders.
