State v. S.O., 2024AP1350, 10/8/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.O. (“Sarah”) challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “Daniel,” arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition when it failed to explicitly consider Daniel’s wishes.
Daniel was removed from his parents’ care shortly after birth and had lived with his grandparents his entire life. The state filed a petition to terminate Sarah’s parental rights, alleging grounds of continuing chips, abandonment, and failure to assume parental responsibility. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1)(a)2., (2), (6). (¶3). Sarah pleaded no contest to the continuing CHIPS allegation.
At the dispositional hearing, Daniel’s case manager opined that Daniel was too young, at 5 years old, to fully understand what adoption meant, but that he expressed that he wanted to stay with his grandparents. Sarah did not contest this or offer evidence that Daniel wished otherwise. (¶5).
The court agrees with the state and GAL argue that despite the absence of an explicit reference to Daniel’s wishes in the court’s oral ruling, the case manager’s testimony about Daniel’s wishes and his visits with his mother establish his wishes, and that the circuit court’s ruling implicitly reflects that it gave adequate consideration to this factor. (¶13). The circuit court indicated that it considered Daniel’s wishes by stating that it would go through the required statutory factors to determine whether it is in Daniel’s best interests to terminate Sarah’s parental rights, and explained that its decision is based on “all of the other factors I have considered[.]” (¶15).
The COA searches the record for adequate consideration, does not require “magic words,” and does not make factual determinations. See Lofthus v. Lofthus, 2004 WI App 65, ¶21, 270 Wis. 2d 515, 678 N.W.2d 393; State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, ¶78, 412 Wis. 2d 364, 8 N.W.3d 22; Rand v. Rand, 2010 WI App 98, ¶23, 327 Wis. 2d 778, 787 N.W.2d 445. Because the circuit court twice stated it was considering all of the statutory factors, and the evidence presented supported the disposition, the COA concludes the record demonstrates that the circuit court considered Daniel’s wishes, despite failing to explicitly identify this factor.
