State v. M.E.E., 2023AP1510, 11/28/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent opinion, COA affirms under well-settled standards of review.
“Michael” attacks the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to both grounds found by the jury in this TPR appeal–continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶7). In an exhaustive ten-page discussion of all the trial evidence as measured against each element submitted to the jury, COA is satisfied there was “credible evidence” to support the jury’s verdicts. (¶27); (¶31).
Michael also challenges the circuit court’s discretionary decision to terminate his parental rights by alleging that the trial court improperly focused on his “odd beliefs.” (¶32). He focuses on a lengthy and bizarre exchange with the circuit court where Michael apparently denied that traffic laws are, in fact, laws and appeared to believe he had some kind of inherent right to drive without a license. (¶34). However, the circuit court expressly stated that it was not holding those “beliefs” against Michael in terminating his parental rights; even if it had, COA is unconvinced this would be an erroneous exercise of discretion. (¶44). In any case, the court properly considered all the relevant factors and Michael’s request that the court reweigh those factors on appeal is categorically barred by the existing standard of review in this case, where evidence in the record supports the court’s judgment. (¶43).
