State v. C.M., 2024AP1416-1418, District I, 10/15/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The parent’s challenge to the court’s discretionary termination decision goes nowhere given the standard of review.
“Corinna” alleges that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at the dispositional hearing because its finding regarding the third statutory factor–the existence of a substantial relationship with the parent or other relatives and whether severance would harm the child–is unsupported by the record. (¶11). She is specifically aggrieved that the circuit court allegedly failed to consider her testimony on this point. (¶14). COA faults Corinna by focusing on her relationship with the children rather than the reverse (which is what it believes must be assessed under the statute). (¶15). Moreover, the record reflects that the circuit court explicitly considered this factor in its discretionary decision. (¶16). It also finds that the circuit court did not erroneously rely on promises of the foster parents to maintain a relationship, as it acknowledged the legal impact of its termination order when assessing these “good faith” promises. (¶17).
