State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
A jury found in favor of the State with respect to both grounds, continuing CHIPS and failure to assume. (¶8). On appeal, “Roy” first argues that the evidence for the continuing CHIPS ground was insufficient, as the State failed to prove that DMCPS made reasonable efforts to provide him services. (¶18). Essentially, he argues that DMCPS needed to do more to assist him while he was incarcerated. (¶19). Following SCOW’s decision in Tanya B., COA holds that his “unavailability to participate in certain services due to his incarceration was a relevant consideration regarding whether DMCPS made a reasonable effort.” (¶21). His level of cooperation is another relevant factor. (¶22). Overall, COA is satisfied that there is credible evidence in the record, based on the testimony of the case manager, to support the jury’s verdict. (¶23).
As to the failure to assume ground, Roy argues there was insufficient evidence he lacked a substantial relationship with his child. (¶24). Although COA acknowledges that Roy was seemingly making “progress” on this front, it highlights testimony supporting the jury’s verdict including Roy’s lack of contact, failure to become the child’s legally adjudicated father, and the fact that he was not responsible for daily care or financial support. (¶26).
Court’s Discretionary Termination Decision
Finally, Roy argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating his rights. (¶27). Although he concedes that the court considered the appropriate factors, he disagrees with how those factors were weighed. (Id.). COA cites well-settled precedent for the proposition that it will not reweigh the evidence and therefore affirms the court’s discretionary decision.
