State v. M.M., 2023AP2093-2100, 2/22/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Challenges to circuit court disposition orders are almost never successful. This case is no exception. M.M. (“Melissa”) argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that terminating her parental rights to her eight children was in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms.
Melissa’s cases proceeded to disposition after she entered a no contest plea to grounds and the state presented testimoiny that Melissa’s children were in continuing need of protection and services. At disposition, Melissa did not seek reunification with her children. Instead, she sought to have the CHIPS cases reinstated and have the children placed with their maternal grandmother, Yvonne. Op., ¶3. In response, the circuit court found that while “all the children wanted to continue to visit Melissa and Yvonne,” the relationship was not a “substantial one.”
On appeal, Melissa’s arguments regarding the circuit court’s decision boils down to this: “Melissa does not contend that the circuit court failed to consider any required factor; rather, she disagrees with how the circuit court considered some of the factors in light of the available evidence.” Op., ¶8. The court’s response is: “That some record testimony exists that could support a different finding is not enough to render the circuit court’s exercise of discretion erroneous.” Op., ¶12. In other words, there’s a difference between what might have been a strong argument at disposition and what turns into easy to dispose of argument on appeal.
