J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.
The child, R.H., had drugs in his system when J.L.B. gave birth to him in 2021. J.L.B. was R.H.’s primary caretaker until he “overdosed” on an undetermined substance while in her care. After that, R.H. was placed with his father, J.H., and the court imposed conditions on J.L.B. to have visitation with R.H. She continued to visit with him, despite not meeting the condition for drug testing, for some time. After visits ceased, she reached out to J.H. for information about R.H. but he often did not respond to her messages and ultimately blocked her number. (¶¶8-12). However, J.L.B. had video calls with R.H. at times when he was in a family member’s care. (¶14).
J.H. filed a petition to terminate J.L.B.’s parental rights in December 2023, alleging abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility. (¶¶3, 5). He later moved for summary judgment, focusing his argument on abandonment. (¶6). The circuit court granted summary judgment on both grounds, and then held a dispositional hearing, after which it terminated J.L.B.’s parental rights to R.H. (¶¶16-17).
COA concludes that issues of material fact exist as to both grounds. For abandonment, the court focuses on the third element–that the parent failed to visit or communicate with the child for a period of six months or longer. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1)(a)3. (¶23). While there is no dispute that J.L.B. failed to visit R.H. for at least six months, her deposition established a factual issue as to communication with R.H., as she testified that she communicated with R.H. during video calls when he was in another adult’s care, and that he participated in the calls. (¶¶25, 27).
As to failure to assume parental responsibly, which is established by “proving that the parent … [has] not had a substantial parental relationship with the child[,]” Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6)(a)., COA concludes:
Here, as the circuit court recognized, many of the relevant facts are undisputed and cut in J.H.’s favor, but there is also undisputed evidence that J.L.B. was R.H.’s primary caretaker during the first 10 months of his life. There is also some evidence that J.L.B. may have provided a small amount of money and clothing for R.H.’s care on a couple of occasions. Given that parental responsibility is assessed by reviewing the circumstances throughout the child’s entire life, I cannot conclude that J.H. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this ground.
(¶33).
Finally, the court notes J.L.B.’s arguments as to disposition, but holds that it “need not resolve whether the court’s discussion was sufficient because, as stated, partial summary judgment should not have been granted during the grounds phase of the proceeding.” (¶34).
