State v. T. L.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 1, 2024
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal Nos.
2024AP859 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2021TP71
2021TP72
2024AP860 2021TP73
2024AP861 2021TP74
2021TP75
2024AP862
2024AP863
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

APPEAL NO. 2024AP859

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J.L., A PERSON UNDER THE
AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

T.L.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

APPEAL NO. 2024AP860

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO I.E.L., A PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

T.L.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL NO. 2024AP861

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO A.L., A PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

T.L.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

2
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

APPEAL NO. 2024AP862

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO M.L., A PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

T.L.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL NO. 2024AP863

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO A.L.-M., A PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

T.L.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MARSHALL B. MURRAY, Judge. Affirmed.

3
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

¶1 GEENEN, J.1 Taylor appeals the termination of her parental rights
to Jason, Isaac, Anna, Marvin, and Amanda-Lynn.2 She argues that there was
insufficient evidence for the circuit court to conclude that it was in the best interest
of the children to terminate her parental rights. The record reflects that the circuit
court, in making its conclusion, considered each of the relevant statutory factors
for each child, and its factual findings are supported by the record. Therefore, we
affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Taylor is the mother of Jason (born 9/4/2008), Isaac (born 4/5/2012),
Anna (born 9/5/2013), Marvin (born 10/23/2016) and Amanda-Lynn (born
5/23/2018). On December 9, 2019, the Division of Milwaukee Child Protective
Services (“DMCPS”) received a referral after Anna came to school with a loop
mark on her right cheek. Anna initially claimed that she fell down the stairs and
that a cat scratched her, but when speaking with the social worker about the
incident and later during her forensic interview, Anna instead stated that her aunt
had hit her in the face with a belt. On January 6, 2020, DMCPS received a second
referral regarding disclosures made by Jason, Isaac, and Anna alleging physical
abuse in the home by Taylor. When DMCPS spoke with family and acquaintances
about the issues raised in the two referrals, multiple people expressed their own
concerns and relayed their observations, including Taylor physically abusing the

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2021-22).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
2
For ease of reading and to protect the confidentiality of these proceedings, we use
pseudonyms to refer to all involved parties in this case.

4
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

children on multiple occasions, withholding food from the children, and neglecting
and improperly caring for the children. Milwaukee Police followed up on the
January 2020 referral, which ultimately led to Taylor’s arrest. Taylor was charged
with three counts of felony child abuse—intentionally causing harm, and the
criminal court entered a no-contact order prohibiting Taylor from having contact
with Jason, Isaac, and Anna. Due to statements made by Jason and Isaac about not
wanting to live with Taylor, the no-contact order, and the concerns about physical
abuse and neglect, all five children were taken into temporary physical custody
and placed in foster homes.

¶3 All five children were found to be in need of protection or services,
and on June 26, 2020, CHIPS3 dispositional orders were entered in each of the
children’s cases. On March 26, 2021, the State filed petitions to terminate
Taylor’s parental rights (“TPR”) to all five children, alleging as grounds for
termination “continuing CHIPS”—that the children remained in need of protection
or services—under WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2), and failure to assume parental
responsibility under § 48.415(6).4 In all of the cases, Taylor entered a no-contest

3
CHIPS is the acronym used “to denote the phrase ‘child in need of protection or
services’ as used in the Wisconsin Children’s Code, chapter 48, Stats.” Marinette County. v.
Tammy C., 219 Wis. 2d 206, 208 n.1, 579 N.W.2d 635 (1998).
4
Termination of parental rights cases consist of two phases: a grounds phase to
determine whether there are grounds to terminate a parent’s rights, and a dispositional phase,
which determines whether termination is in the children’s best interest. Sheboygan County
DHHS v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95, ¶¶24-28, 255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 402. If grounds are
found by the court, the parent is found “unfit,” WIS. STAT. § 48.424(4), and the case moves to the
dispositional phase. Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶26, 271 Wis. 2d 1, 678 N.W.2d 856. If
a parent chooses to enter a plea to the grounds alleged for termination, the State must still present
evidence to “prove-up” the grounds by clear and convincing evidence. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S.,
2001 WI 110, ¶3, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768.

5
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

plea to the continuing CHIPS ground, but the circuit court failed to take evidence
in support of her plea.5 See WIS. STAT. § 48.422(3). The cases proceeded to the
second step of the TPR proceedings, disposition, and the circuit court ordered that
Taylor’s parental rights to each of the children be terminated on January 3, 2023.
Postjudgment, Taylor filed a motion to withdraw her no-contest plea and to vacate
the TPR orders based on the circuit court’s failure to take evidence in support of
grounds. The circuit court denied Taylor’s request to withdraw her no-contest
plea, but vacated the TPR orders and scheduled a new TPR hearing to take prove-
up evidence as to grounds and to address disposition.

¶4 At the hearing on January 30, 2024, the circuit court heard testimony
from the children’s ongoing case manager regarding their continued need for
protective services. At the conclusion of the testimony, the circuit court found that
the State had established the continuing CHIPS ground for all five children, found
Taylor to be unfit, and proceeded directly to a contested dispositional hearing.
During the dispositional hearing, the circuit court heard testimony from the
ongoing case manager; the case manager’s supervisor; the children’s foster
parents, Tracy and Michael, who were also the children’s adoptive resources;
Taylor; and Taylor’s friend. After considering the evidence and discussing each
of the statutory factors under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3) as to each of the children, the
circuit court terminated Taylor’s parental rights to all five children.

¶5 Taylor appeals. Additional relevant facts are discussed below.

5
Prove-up testimony was taken as to grounds for terminating the parental rights of the
fathers of the five children, but the circuit court mistakenly believed that prove-up testimony had
been taken with respect to the ground of continuing CHIPS for Taylor.

6
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

DISCUSSION

¶6 Taylor argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion when it terminated her parental rights because its dispositional findings
are not supported by the record. Essentially, Taylor argues that the circuit court
should have weighed the evidence differently.

¶7 At the dispositional phase of a TPR proceeding, the circuit court
decides whether the evidence supports the termination of parental rights and if the
termination is in the best interests of the children. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001
WI 110, ¶23, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768. The circuit court’s analysis is
guided by WIS. STAT. § 48.426(1), which provides that “the court shall consider
the standard and factors enumerated in this section[,]” and § 48.426(2) sets forth
the standard: “The best interests of the child[ren] shall be the prevailing factor
considered by the court in determining the disposition” of the children. Finally,
§ 48.426(3) requires that, in determining the best interests of the children, the
court consider the following factors:

(a) The likelihood of the child[ren]’s adoption after
termination.

(b) The age and health of the child[ren], both at the time of
the disposition and, if applicable, at the time the child[ren]
[were] removed from the home.

(c) Whether the child[ren] [have] substantial relationships
with the parent or other family members, and whether it
would be harmful to the child[ren] to sever these
relationships.

(d) The wishes of the child[ren].

(e) The duration of the separation of the parent from the
child[ren].

7
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

(f) Whether the child[ren] will be able to enter into a more
stable and permanent family relationship as a result of the
termination, taking into account the conditions of the
child[ren]’s current placement[s], the likelihood of future
placements and the results of prior placements.

Id. “[T]he record should reflect adequate consideration of and weight to each
factor.” State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶35, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d
475.

¶8 The circuit court’s decision whether to terminate parental rights is
discretionary. Gerald O. v. Cindy R., 203 Wis. 2d 148, 152, 551 N.W.2d 855 (Ct.
App. 1996). The circuit court “properly exercises its discretion when it examines
the relevant facts, applies a proper standard of law and, using a demonstrated
rational process, reaches a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.” Id.
The circuit court’s findings will not be set aside unless “clearly erroneous.” Id. at
152-53.

¶9 In considering the likelihood of adoption of the children, the circuit
court heard testimony from the children’s ongoing case manager as well as the two
foster parents and adoptive resources for the children: Michael6 for Anna and
Tracy for Jason, Isaac, Marvin, and Amanda-Lynn. In the event that Michael
and/or Tracy could not adopt, the ongoing case manager testified that the children
were still adoptable. Both Michael and Tracy testified and affirmed their
commitment to adopting the children in their care. Michael testified that he had
placement of Anna since 2020, and Tracy testified that she had placement of

6
Michael is the maternal uncle to all five children.

8
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

Marvin and Amanda-Lynn for four years and Jason and Isaac for two years.
Based on this testimony, the circuit court found that the foster parents were
committed to adopting the children in their care, that they were committed to
meeting the needs of the children, and that the children were otherwise all
adoptable.

¶10 The second factor, the ages and health of the children, both at the
time of removal and disposition, was also addressed and considered by the circuit
court. The ongoing case manager testified that the children were most recently
removed from the home in January 2020, also noting that Jason, Isaac, and Anna
had previously been removed in 2015 for about eighteen months. From oldest to
youngest, the testimony established that the children were approximately ages
eleven, seven, six, three, and one at the time of removal. By the time of the
second disposition hearing on January 30, 2024, the children had been in out-of-
home care for “three plus years.” The circuit court referenced these facts in its
findings.

¶11 Additionally, the circuit court heard testimony about the health of
each child at the time of removal as well as at the time of the disposition hearing.
The testimony established that, at removal, Jason had a history of behavioral
issues including stealing and lying, and was behind in school with failing grades.
He also had dental issues, back issues, PTSD, and other emotional trauma. Jason
was treated by—and at the time of the dispositional hearing, continued to receive
treatment necessary for his conditions—appropriate doctors, a dentist, a
psychiatrist, and a therapist. By the time of the second disposition hearing, Jason
had transitioned into a typical fifteen-year-old who did well in school.

9
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

¶12 Witnesses testified that Isaac also entered out-of-home care needing
dental care and medical treatment, and suffering from trauma. After removal, he
received treatment from various health care professionals and Tracy testified that,
as of the haring date, Isaac was up-to-date on all medical and dental appointments,
had no behavioral issues, and was earning a 3.8 GPA in school.

¶13 Testimony established that Marvin needed immunizations and
glasses, did not use the toilet independently, and had speech delays at removal.
While in out-of-home care, Marvin received therapy and other services for
children with suspected developmental delays; he progressed well behaviorally
and graduated from therapy, and was doing well in school.

¶14 Evidence at the hearing established that, at removal, Amanda-Lynn
was overdue for medical treatment related to a leg or foot condition as well as
routine medical care, and she exhibited trauma-related behavior. Witnesses
testified that Amanda-Lynn subsequently received therapy, corrective medical
treatment for her leg condition, and other interventions and services for
developmental matters, and made significant progress behaviorally. By the time
of the second dispositional hearing, she was a “typical” five-year-old, who did
well in school and continued to see appropriate medical professionals, as
necessary.

¶15 Evidence also established that Anna had high needs and behavioral
issues at removal. She experienced speech and developmental delays, and had
engaged in self-harming behaviors. At disposition, Michael testified that Anna
had improved “leaps and bounds” behaviorally and, while struggles existed, had

10
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

also improved academically with the implementation of an individualized
education plan.

¶16 The circuit court appropriately noted the ages of the children as well
as the individual health and progress that the children experienced since removal
from the home, and found that the second factor weighed in favor of terminating
Taylor’s parental rights.

¶17 The circuit court thoroughly explored whether the children had
substantial relationships with Taylor or other family members, and whether it
would be harmful to the children to sever these relationships. The ongoing case
manager supervisor testified that there were no substantial relationships between
the children and either Taylor or any extended maternal family members. At the
time of disposition, none of the children were in contact with Taylor. Other
testimony established that Taylor never visited with the three oldest children after
their removal, and she was inconsistent with her twice weekly visits with the
younger children who were not subject to the no-contact order, often shortening
the visits to only twenty minutes or canceling them entirely. The visits had ended
altogether a year earlier, after the circuit court made the original TPR findings and
order. Multiple witnesses, including Taylor, testified that Taylor was not involved
in and knew little about the children’s lives—she did not ask about schooling or
inquire about the children’s medical care.

¶18 Citing the lack of visitation and Taylor’s failure to be informed
about her children’s lives and progress, the circuit court found that there was no
substantial relationship between Taylor and the children. It entertained the idea
that Taylor might achieve reunification if given an additional year, but ultimately,

11
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

it found that an additional year would not make a significant impact on her
relationship with the children, noting that the two oldest children “moved on[.]”
The circuit court found that the children would not be harmed by severing their
legal relationships with Taylor.

¶19 With respect to the children’s relationships with maternal family
members, Anna was placed with Michael, her maternal uncle, so that relationship
continued. Testimony established that the other four children spoke with their
maternal grandmother and their uncle Michael. The circuit court observed that the
children have a relationship with each other, they regularly get together, and four
of the siblings live in the same home. It also observed that the children have a
relationship with their maternal grandmother, and that relationship will likely
continue through Tracy and Michael. The circuit court found that the children
would not be harmed by severing these legal relationships.

¶20 Testimony on the fourth factor, the wishes of the children,
established that each of the children expressed a desire to be adopted by their
foster parent. Tracy testified that the four children placed with her call her “mom”
and have all expressed their desire to be adopted by her. Specifically, Jason told
Tracy that he wants to live with her and that he would run away if he returned to
Taylor’s care. The ongoing case manager testified that Jason expressed concerns
about reunification, and how, if reunification occurred, he would prefer
emancipation. Isaac had stated in the past that he would commit suicide or run
away if he ever had to return to Taylor’s care. Tracy also testified that Isaac wrote
a letter in support of Tracy adopting him, but the letter was not admitted into
evidence. Marvin and Amanda-Lynn both expressed to Tracy that they want to be

12
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

adopted by and live with Tracy. Michael testified that Anna views him as a father
figure and, depending on her mood, has expressed a desire to live with him
forever.

¶21 The circuit court found that Jason, age fifteen, wished to remain with
Tracy and did not wish to return to Taylor’s care; that Isaac, age eleven, wished to
be adopted; that Anna, age ten, wished to be adopted by her maternal uncle,
Michael; that Marvin, age seven, wished to be adopted; and that Amanda-Lynn,
age five, referred to Tracy as “mother.”

¶22 The evidence regarding the fifth factor, the duration of the separation
between parent and child, established that the period of separation was substantial.
The children were removed from Taylor’s home in January 2020 and had never
returned. In addition, Jason, Isaac, and Anna were previously removed from
Taylor’s care for approximately eighteen months in 2015. The circuit court found
these facts were uncontested and that the factor weighed in favor of termination.

¶23 On the sixth and final factor, whether the children will be able to
enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of the
termination, the testimony established that the children’s respective foster parents
were committed to adopting and meeting the needs of the children, and that, if the
circuit court did not grant the TPR petitions, the children would likely remain in
foster care because Taylor’s home remained unsafe. As a result, and in light of the
length of time that the children had been in their placements, the case manager
testified that she believed all five of the children would enter into more stable and
permanent family relationships consistent with the each of the children’s wishes, if
Taylor’s parental rights were terminated.

13
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

¶24 The circuit court found that this factor weighed in favor of
termination, finding that the children are placed in adoptive resources, that those
adoptive resources are willing and able to meet the ongoing needs of the children,
that four of the siblings live with one another and that Anna, though not placed
with her siblings, is placed with her maternal uncle. The circuit court additionally
found that each of the children would enter more stable and permanent family
relationships as a result of termination, emphasizing the need for stability and that
the three older children had already been removed from Taylor’s home previously.

¶25 After a review of the record and evidence as a whole, we are
confident that the circuit court considered the standard and all statutory factors in
determining what was in each child’s best interest. The circuit court addressed
and explained how the record evidence supported its findings with respect to each
factor for each child, and determined that granting the TPR petitions was in each
child’s best interest. Wisconsin law does not “mandate the relative weight” to be
placed on any particular factor, but rather that all factors be considered. Margaret
H., 234 Wis. 2d 606, ¶29. Here, although Taylor wishes that the circuit court had
weighed the evidence differently, the record reflects that the circuit court gave
“adequate consideration of and weight to each factor[,]” and its findings are well
supported by the evidence. Id., ¶35. The circuit court examined the relevant facts,
applied the proper standard of law and, using a demonstrated rational process,
reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Gerald O., 203 Wis. 2d
at 152. Accordingly, we affirm.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

14
Nos. 2024AP859
2024AP860
2024AP861
2024AP862
2024AP863

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

15