State v. S.F., 2023AP1699, 1702-1705, 12/12/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In an all-around sad TPR appeal, S.F. (“Sabrina”) challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that grounds existed to terminate and (2) the court’s discretionary decision to terminate her parental rights to her five children. Despite the fact that neither court doubted Sabrina’s love and affection for her children, the court of appeals affirms.
The court’s decision is lengthy given the fact that Sabrina had a court trial on grounds to each of her five children and then a two-day hearing on disposition. The petition to terminate Sabrina’s parental rights alleged continuing CHIPS and failure to assume. The main dispute in terms of both grounds and disposition appears to have been how Sabrina’s own cognitive difficulties and mental health issues hindered her ability to meet the court ordered conditions of return or to assume parental responsibility while the CHIPS order was ongoing.
In terms of grounds, both courts acknowledged Sabrina’s own challenges, but the court affirms because (1) the state presented sufficient evidence that the agency’s efforts were reasonable even considering Sabrina’s circumstances and (2) Sabrina’s substantial relationship with her children was not substantial, despite her love and affection, because she was unable to provide care for her children for three years. Op., ¶¶38-50.
At disposition, the court affirms the TPR orders because the circuit court considered all of the statutory factors and reached a conclusion a reasonable judge could reach. Again, Sabrina relied on her love and affection for her children, but the court affirms the circuit court’s reliance on all of the other factors and the discretionary decision with regard to what the circuit court concluded was in the best interests of the children. Op., ¶¶51-54.
