State v. J. D. R., Sr.

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 19, 2022
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff 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 No. 2022AP802 Cir. Ct. No. 2020TP204

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

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

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

J. D. R., SR.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
ELLEN R. BROSTROM, Judge. Affirmed.
No. 2022AP802

¶1 DUGAN, J.1 Jacob appeals an order of the trial court terminating
his parental rights to his son.2 On appeal, he argues that the evidence introduced
at his grounds trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. He also argues
that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion at the disposition hearing
when it weighed the factors and terminated his rights. Upon review, this court
affirms.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Jacob’s son, Shawn, was born prematurely in August 2017 to Jacob
and Lauren. As a result of Lauren’s substance abuse, Shawn tested positive for
both cocaine and marijuana at the time of his birth. A home safety plan was
immediately put into place for Shawn by the Division of Milwaukee Child
Protective Services’ (DMCPS) under which Jacob was not to leave Shawn
unsupervised with Lauren for any period of time and to make alternate care
arrangements with Jacob’s sister—Shawn’s aunt—if Jacob was not able to care for
Shawn. The home safety plan failed—DMCPS observed Shawn unsupervised
with Lauren, and Shawn was removed from the parental home in January 2018.3
Shawn has been living outside of the parental home since his removal in January
2018.

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2019-20).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
2
For ease of reference and to maintain the confidentiality of these proceedings, this court
uses pseudonyms to refer to the individuals in these proceedings.
3
While DMCPS suspected multiple violations of the home safety plan, the plan finally
ended when Jacob suffered “a personal health crisis” and DMCPS confirmed that Shawn was left
in Lauren’s care.

2
No. 2022AP802

¶3 The State filed a petition to terminate Jacob’s parental rights on
September 18, 2020.4 As grounds, the State alleged that Shawn was a child in
continuing need of protection or services (continuing CHIPS) and that Jacob failed
to assume parental responsibility. Jacob contested the allegations in the petition,
and the case proceeded to a jury trial on the grounds phase.

¶4 At the jury trial in December 2021, the jury heard testimony from
several witnesses, including several of the case managers and Jacob. The case
managers testified that Jacob continued a relationship with Lauren for several
years, failed to identify and protect Shawn from the dangers present in the home
related to Lauren’s drug usage, and left Shawn unsupervised with Lauren in
violation of the home safety plan. The case managers further testified that Jacob
repeatedly denied the presence of a convicted sex offender living in his home, and
that Jacob failed to recognize the danger that this individual’s presence posed to
Shawn.5

4
The petition also sought to terminate the mother’s rights. Her rights are not at issue in
this appeal.

Additionally, as the trial court later recognized at the disposition hearing, the State
delayed filing the termination of parental rights action and requested an exception to the deadlines
for filing the petition “hoping that somehow … this family could be put back together.”
5
As further described in detail at the disposition hearing, an older son of Jacob and
Lauren had sexually assaulted one of his younger sisters—also a daughter of Jacob and Lauren—
on multiple occasions at the family home. Court records introduced at the disposition hearing
indicated that Jacob’s older son was fifteen years old at the time of the assaults, and Jacob’s
daughter was twelve or thirteen years old. Additionally, the daughter reported the assaults to her
parents, but neither Jacob nor Lauren acted on her reports. In fact, Jacob indicated that he
responded by shooting his older son with a BB gun.

(continued)

3
No. 2022AP802

¶5 Additionally, the case managers testified that Jacob participated in
visitation with Shawn, but he often failed to arrange for activities to do during the
visits and sometimes the visits ended early as a result of a lack of activities and
supplies for the visits.

¶6 The case managers further testified that Jacob was generally
unwilling to participate in many of the services offered to him and often missed or
rescheduled appointments and generally failed to complete the services. On the
other hand, the case managers did recognize that Jacob made progress in meeting
select conditions for Shawn’s return by participating in parenting classes and
therapy to learn to control his temper, but Jacob had not ultimately made the
necessary progress to meet the conditions. Overall, the case managers testified
that there were still ongoing concerns with Jacob’s anger and his temper leading to
inappropriate discipline and behavioral expectations that were not age appropriate,
and there were concerns regarding the safety of the home. Thus, Jacob had not
met the conditions for Shawn’s return, which required Jacob to provide a safe
home for Shawn, control his emotions, supervise Shawn, and put Shawn’s needs
above his own.

¶7 Jacob testified that he had been involved with Shawn’s prenatal care
and had provided for Shawn’s daily needs from the time Shawn was born until the
time Shawn was removed from the home. Jacob further testified that he had

The case manager testified that Jacob indicated that his older son was not living at his
home, but the case manager observed that both Jacob’s older son and his daughter were present in
the home as recently as August 2021. The case manager observed the older son in the home,
along with signs that he was living in the basement, and she also found that Jacob’s son had
provided the address of the family home to his probation agent and Jacob’s address was listed in
court records as the son’s address.

4
No. 2022AP802

regular visits with Shawn and would bring food and other items to the visits. He
also testified that he participated in several of the services that his case managers
offered to him and that he was making progress in controlling his anger, exercising
appropriate discipline, and having age appropriate expectations for Shawn.

¶8 Jacob denied that Lauren had unsupervised contact with Shawn, and
he testified that the only time Lauren had unsupervised contact was the time that
Shawn was removed from the home. He explained that he was suffering from a
medical emergency at the time and Lauren was the only person available to care
for Shawn on such short notice. Jacob further denied that there was ever anyone
in the house that was not supposed to be there and there was never an unsafe
individual in the home. He also testified that he ended his relationship with
Lauren in October 2021.

¶9 In the end, the jury found that the State had proved both the
continuing CHIPS and the failure to assume parental responsibility grounds. The
trial court subsequently found Jacob to be an unfit parent, and the case proceeded
to the disposition hearing.

¶10 At the disposition hearing, Shawn’s foster mother, the current case
manager, and Jacob testified.6 The foster mother testified that Shawn’s health had
improved since he had been in her care and that he looked to her for comfort and
his daily needs. She further testified that she would adopt Shawn if Jacob’s
parental rights were terminated; however, she was also committed to maintaining a

6
The disposition hearing also included testimony related to the termination of Lauren’s
parental rights to Shawn’s half-sister. Shawn’s half-sister is not the subject of this appeal, and as
previously stated, Lauren’s parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.

5
No. 2022AP802

relationship with Jacob because she had a good “co-parenting” relationship with
him and believed it was in Shawn’s best interest to continue contact with Jacob.
Accordingly, she also testified that Shawn calls her and her husband by their first
names and Shawn knows Jacob and Lauren as mom and dad. As to other family
members, the foster mother testified that Shawn had little to no contact with his
siblings, and she was not aware of any contact that Shawn had with extended
family members.

¶11 The case manager testified that Shawn was doing well in his current
placement, that the foster family currently meets all of Shawn’s needs, and that
she believed it was in Shawn’s best interests that Jacob’s parental rights be
terminated. As to family members, the case manager testified that Shawn
“recognizes” his siblings, but that any harm of severing the legal relationship with
his siblings would be short term.

¶12 The case manager also provided extensive testimony detailing the
sexual assault case involving one of Jacob’s older sons—the convicted sex
offender referenced at the grounds trial—and testified that she saw him at Jacob’s
house, along with signs that he was living in the basement of Jacob’s house. The
case manager further testified that, while Jacob generally denied that his older son
was living in the basement, she spoke to the son’s probation agent, and the
probation agent indicated to her that Jacob’s older son had provided Jacob’s
address as his residence.7 The case manager further detailed that she observed a
7
During the grounds trial another case manager testified that she visited Jacob’s
residence in August 2021, to assess it for safety. In the basement, she saw sheets hanging from
the ceiling and Jacob’s older son, who was a convicted sex offender, pulled a sheet back and
walked out. She saw a bed behind the sheets. During a second visit to the residence in October
2021, she again went into the basement and saw a bed, a table with a TV and toiletries on it,
marijuana and a “mask” for inhaling marijuana.

6
No. 2022AP802

bedroom for Jacob’s daughter—the victim of the older son’s sexual assaults—in
the same house, and one of Jacob’s other sons told a prior case manager that the
older son was living in the house.

¶13 By contrast, Jacob testified that his family was very close knit and
Shawn was bonded with his brothers and sisters. He described that he arranged
outings to places such as Chuck E. Cheese with Shawn and his other siblings in
order that Shawn would be able to know his other siblings, and he believed Shawn
was bonded to his siblings. He also testified that he saw himself as the one
keeping his family together, that he had FaceTime calls with Shawn regularly, and
that he provided for Shawn’s needs by providing him clothes and shoes. He
further testified that he has been continuing parenting classes and has learned to
control his temper and to talk about his problems. He also explained that Lauren
and his older son no longer lived with him and were not allowed in his home.8

¶14 The trial court ultimately terminated Jacob’s parental rights. In
evaluating the factors to be applied at the disposition hearing, the trial court began
by recognizing that there have been allegations that Jacob had engaged in
inappropriate discipline of the children but that this case has never been about
Jacob being abusive. Instead, the trial court characterized this case as one of
“addiction” and “what addiction has brought into this family.” The trial court
stated that Jacob “has a very strong dedication to keeping his family together,” and
the trial court continued that it wanted to recognize that Jacob clearly loved
Lauren and was devoted to her. Overall, the trial court stated that it was

8
On cross-examination, Jacob did testify, however, that he had a FaceTime call with
Shawn at Thanksgiving, and his older son, as well as several of his other children, could be seen
in the background. Jacob’s explanation was that it was not his house.

7
No. 2022AP802

“respectful of the good qualities and the challenges of these parents” that made
this case “really a hard case.”

¶15 However, the trial court continued that Lauren was really a danger to
these kids, and Jacob “didn’t appear to be protective” because he often seemed
unaware of Lauren’s drug usage and “not gathering and understanding the gravity
of the circumstances.” Moreover, the trial court stated that Jacob failed again at
being a protective parent during the situation with his older son and allowing his
son to live in his home with the sister that he sexually assaulted, as well as have
regular access to the rest of Jacob’s young children. Thus, the trial court found
that Jacob’s testimony was not credible: “[Jacob] testified that I should believe he
can manage all of this and be protective, but that hasn’t been what he has
demonstrated.”

¶16 Overall, the trial court found that it was in Shawn’s best interests to
terminate Jacob’s parental rights. The trial court noted that Shawn had now been
placed outside of Jacob’s home for four years, which accounts for the majority of
Shawn’s life; that Shawn was thriving in his current placement; and that Shawn’s
current placement was an adoptive resource. Because of Shawn’s age, the trial
court placed little weight on the factor looking at the wishes of the child, and
because Shawn had been placed outside the parental home for the majority of his
life, the trial court found that it was hard to gauge the nature of his relationship
with Jacob. However, the trial court stated that the foster family was dedicated to
doing what was in Shawn’s best interests and that the harm of terminating Jacob’s
parental rights would be mitigated by the foster family’s “dedication in continuing
contact.” The trial court also found that, “most fundamentally,” Shawn needed
stability and permanence, and termination of Jacob’s rights would provide that.

8
No. 2022AP802

¶17 Jacob now appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Sustain the Jury’s Verdict

¶18 On appeal, Jacob argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove
the grounds alleged in the TPR petition.9 “A jury’s verdict must be sustained if
there is any credible evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the
verdict, to support it.” Sheboygan Cnty. DHHS v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55, ¶49,
325 Wis. 2d 524, 785 N.W.2d 369. In this case, the State alleged both continuing
CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds in the TPR petition,
and therefore, this court addresses whether there was sufficient evidence to
support the jury’s verdicts as to these two grounds.

A. Continuing CHIPS

¶19 For the continuing CHIPS grounds, the State was required to prove
that Shawn was a child in need of protection or services under a relevant court
order containing a notice of termination of parental rights, that DMCPS made a
reasonable effort to provide services to Jacob to meet the court-ordered conditions
for Shawn’s return, and that Jacob failed to meet the conditions for Shawn’s
return. See WIS. STAT. § 48.415(2)(a).

9
In his brief, Jacob asserts that the trial court’s finding that Jacob was an unfit parent
was clearly erroneous and that the trial court had a duty to find grounds by clear and convincing
evidence. This misstates the applicable standard. Rather, the trial court is required to find Jacob
to be an unfit parent following a jury verdict that the State proved the grounds, and it was the
jury’s task here to find whether there was clear and convincing evidence to prove the grounds
alleged in the petition. See WIS. STAT. § 48.424(3), (4).

9
No. 2022AP802

¶20 Jacob’s argument on appeal focuses on his own favorable testimony
about his efforts to make positive changes in his life to meet the conditions for
Shawn’s return, and he argues that, considering the testimony he gave about his
progress to meet the conditions of Shawn’s return, there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that he had not met the conditions. Specifically, he points to
his testimony that he was taking parenting classes to learn how to manage
Shawn’s tantrums and control his own anger, that he was involved in counseling to
learn to deal with his anger, and that he was exercising his role as a protective
parent by protecting Shawn from Lauren and other individuals who might be
unsafe. However, considering the testimony from the grounds trial as a whole,
specifically the testimony given by the case managers, there is sufficient credible
evidence to support a finding that Jacob failed to meet the conditions of return.

¶21 As described at the grounds hearing, Jacob was required to meet
several conditions for Shawn’s return including: always supervise Shawn and
place Shawn’s needs above his own, have age appropriate expectations of Shawn,
control his emotions, keep a safe and clean home, provide safe care for Shawn,
and visit with Shawn regularly. In contrast to the positive testimony Jacob gave
about his progress in meeting these conditions for Shawn’s return, the case
managers testified that Jacob generally failed to complete these conditions.

¶22 The case managers testified that Jacob was “minimally” involved in
the services provided to him and cancelled or rescheduled several appointments
with the services that the case managers tried to provide. Also, while Jacob had
participated in some parenting classes and therapy to make some progress in
fulfilling certain conditions that required him to control his emotions, Jacob
generally failed to complete these conditions for Shawn’s return. Specifically,
despite some of the parenting courses and therapy Jacob participated in, there were

10
No. 2022AP802

still concerns about Jacob’s anger leading to inappropriate discipline and
behavioral expectations of Shawn, and with one of the conditions for Shawn’s
return being that Jacob control his anger, this condition was not satisfied. In fact,
one of the case managers testified that Jacob would scream and swear at him on
the phone. Additionally, Jacob also refused to participate in family therapy with
Shawn that was recommended by one of the other case managers.

¶23 To meet the conditions of Shawn’s return, Jacob was also required to
provide a safe and clean home for Shawn, supervise Shawn, and place Shawn’s
needs above his own. However, as the case managers testified, there were
ongoing concerns with Jacob being able to fulfill his role as a protective parent
and provide a safe living environment for Shawn, given that Jacob continued his
relationship with Lauren, exposed Shawn to drug use, and there was evidence that
Jacob’s older son, a convicted sex offender, was living in the home.

¶24 As one of the case managers testified, there was drug
paraphernalia—including a gas mask—in the basement of Jacob’s home, along
with a bedroom in the basement of Jacob’s home for his older son. As cause for
additional concern, Jacob continually denied his son’s presence in his home and
was not forthright with his case managers regarding details of who was in his
home. In fact, one of the case managers testified that she researched court records
regarding the sexual assault case and reached out to Jacob’s son’s probation agent
in order to obtain details. However, when Jacob discovered that the case manager
did this, she testified that Jacob screamed at her.

¶25 The jury also heard that Jacob participated in visits with Shawn, but
the jury also heard from the case managers that Jacob was unprepared for these
visits, which caused the visits to end early. In fact, there was a period of time

11
No. 2022AP802

when Jacob moved from unsupervised to supervised visits that Jacob refused to
visit with Shawn unless the visits moved back to being unsupervised. There was
also testimony that Jacob would attend the visits with Lauren, but he would
require Lauren to provide the food and other supplies, sometimes even having her
leave during the visit to go to the store, while Jacob remained at the visitation
center. There was also concern with the amount of time that Jacob spent on his
phone during visits and entertaining Shawn with the phone, instead of the two
playing and interacting with one another. As part of the conditions of return,
Jacob was required to have regular visits with Shawn, but he was also required to
bring activities to the visits, engage with Shawn, and make use of the entire visit
as one of his conditions for Shawn’s return.

¶26 Examining the testimony as a whole, this court concludes that there
was sufficient evidence at the grounds hearing to support a finding that Jacob
failed to meet the conditions for Shawn’s return and thus a finding of the
continuing CHIPS grounds.

B. Failure to Assume Parental Responsibility

¶27 As to the failure to assume parental responsibility ground, the State
was required to prove that Jacob did not have “a substantial parental relationship”
with Shawn. See WIS. STAT. § 48.415(6)(a). A substantial parental relationship
within the meaning of the statute “means the acceptance and exercise of
significant responsibility for the daily supervision, education, protection and care
of the child.” Sec. 48.415(6)(b). Factors to be considered in evaluating whether a
parent has a substantial parental relationship with a child include:

whether the person has expressed concern for or interest in
the support, care or well-being of the child, whether the
person has neglected or refused to provide care or support

12
No. 2022AP802

for the child and whether, with respect to a person who is
or may be the father of the child, the person has expressed
concern for or interest in the support, care or well-being of
the mother during her pregnancy.

Id.

¶28 Here, Jacob argues that his testimony establishes that the evidence
was insufficient to support a finding that he failed to establish a substantial
parental relationship with Shawn. Specifically, he relies on his testimony about
his involvement in Shawn’s first few months of life and his current visitation with
Shawn, and he argues that this demonstrates that he established a substantial
parental relationship with Shawn.

¶29 While Jacob’s testimony does support that he was involved in
Lauren’s prenatal care and was involved in caring for Shawn on a daily basis for
the first few months of Shawn’s life, the case managers also provided extensive
testimony that Shawn has been living outside Jacob’s home for the majority of his
life, and that Shawn’s foster family had cared for Shawn on a daily basis and
provided for Shawn’s daily needs, including food, clothing, medical care,
education, and comfort. In fact, Jacob himself acknowledged during his testimony
that someone else had been providing for Shawn’s daily needs since Shawn was
removed from his care.

¶30 The case managers also testified that, despite Jacob’s visitation with
Shawn, Jacob failed to inquire about Shawn and failed to involve himself with
Shawn’s daily activities and medical care. Indeed, as one example of Jacob’s lack
of involvement, Jacob was unable to recall the name of Shawn’s daycare. Jacob
also testified that Shawn was doing well in daycare, but the case managers
testified to the contrary, saying that Shawn often had tantrums and “red card” days

13
No. 2022AP802

to the point where his foster mother was worried he would be kicked out of
daycare.

¶31 The case managers further testified that Jacob generally did not
provide Shawn with any clothes, and while Jacob had offered at one point to buy
Shawn a pair of shoes, Jacob still had not followed through with his offer.

¶32 Thus, this court concludes that there was sufficient evidence
introduced at the grounds trial to support the jury’s verdict that Jacob failed to
assume parental responsibility. The testimony from the case managers shows that
Jacob failed to accept or exercise responsibility for Shawn’s daily supervision,
education, protection, and care by, among other things, failing to express concern
for or an interest in Shawn and by failing to provide care or support for Shawn.

¶33 In sum, this court concludes that the evidence was sufficient to
support the jury’s verdicts at the grounds phase. In reaching this conclusion, this
court observes that in making his argument that the evidence was insufficient,
Jacob simply isolates his own testimony from the rest of the testimony that the
jury heard during the trial from the case managers, and requests that this court
conclude that the evidence was insufficient based on his testimony alone. As the
guardian ad litem (GAL) notes, Jacob points to only the “positive testimony
coming from his own time on the stand.” Applying the proper standard—“A
jury’s verdict must be sustained if there is any credible evidence, when viewed in
a light most favorable to the verdict, to support it.”—this court must assess the
evidence introduced at trial as whole—not just simply Jacob’s own self-serving
testimony. See Tanya M.B., 325 Wis. 2d 524, ¶49 (emphasis added). In so doing,
it is clear that the jury heard sufficient evidence to support the verdicts rendered.

14
No. 2022AP802

II. Trial Court’s Decision

¶34 Jacob additionally argues that the trial court erroneously exercised
its discretion at the disposition hearing, and he contends that the trial court’s
weighing of the factors was erroneous because the trial court placed excessive
emphasis on irrelevant facts. This court again disagrees.

¶35 “The ultimate determination of whether to terminate parental rights
is discretionary with the circuit court.” State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶27,
234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475. Consequently, the weighing of the factors at
the disposition hearing is within the trial court’s discretion, and this court “will
sustain the circuit court’s ultimate determination in a proceeding to terminate
parental rights if there is a proper exercise of discretion.” Id., ¶32. “A proper
exercise of discretion requires the circuit court to apply the correct standard of law
to the facts at hand.” Id.

¶36 “At the dispositional hearing, the court must consider any agency
report submitted and the six factors enumerated in [WIS. STAT.] § 48.426(3) in
determining the best interests of the child.” Sheboygan Cnty. DHHS v. Julie
A.B., 2002 WI 95, ¶4, 255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 402. The factors listed in
§ 48.426(3) are:

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

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

(c) Whether the child has substantial relationships with the
parent or other family members, and whether it would be
harmful to the child to sever those relationships.

(d) The wishes of the child.

15
No. 2022AP802

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

(f) Whether the child 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’s placement, the likelihood of future placements and
the results of prior placements.

In this case, a review of the record, demonstrates that the trial court applied the
correct standard of law to the facts of this case.

¶37 The trial court indicated that the driving force behind its decision in
the disposition phase was the best interests of the child, it listed the factors found
in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3), and it provided an analysis of the facts as it related to
the factors and which factors were significant for this case. As to the first two
factors, the trial court found that Shawn was likely to be adopted by his current
foster family, where Shawn was currently thriving and where his health had
improved since being removed from the parental home. The trial court also found
in regards to the third factor that Shawn did not have substantial relationships with
any of his siblings or extended family because Shawn saw them infrequently. The
trial court further found that it was hard to gauge any substantial relationship
between Jacob and Shawn because Shawn had been removed from the parental
home just months after his birth. However, the trial court also acknowledged that
any harm would be mitigated by the foster family’s commitment to maintaining
contact with Jacob. The trial court then placed little weight on the fourth factor
because of Shawn’s young age, but in relation to the fifth factor, the trial court
found that Shawn had spent the majority of his life outside of the parental home.
Overall, the trial court emphasized the sixth factor here, saying that termination of
Jacob’s parental rights would provide Shawn with the stability and permanency he
needed. From this record, this court discerns no erroneous exercise of discretion.

16
No. 2022AP802

Indeed, as Jacob acknowledges, “[a]s required by WIS. STAT. § 48.426, the court
weighed the required factors.”

¶38 Rather, as the State and the GAL argue, Jacob’s argument amounts
to a disagreement regarding the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the weight
assigned to the factors and testimony given at the disposition hearing, and Jacob
admits as much when he argues that “[Jacob] believes that the court’s weighing
was erroneous given the outcome and decision to terminate his parental rights.”
This court will not overturn a discretionary decision of the trial court based on a
disagreement with the weight the trial court assigned to each factor or the
testimony given. “A determination of the best interests of the child in a
termination proceeding depends on first-hand observation and experience with the
persons involved and therefore is committed to the sound discretion of the circuit
court.” See David S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis. 2d 114, 150, 507 N.W.2d 94 (1993).

¶39 Furthermore, as with his first argument, Jacob’s argument here is
based solely on his own favorable testimony given at the disposition hearing, and
he ignores the remainder of the testimony provided by the foster mother and the
case manager that conflicts with his own favorable testimony. He argues that
based on “this record”—referring to only his own testimony—“there is no
support” for the trial court’s decision to terminate Jacob’s parental rights.

¶40 At the disposition hearing, the trial court heard the additional
testimony from the foster mother that Shawn was thriving in her home, that she
was an adoptive resource, and that she was committed to maintaining a
relationship with Jacob. The trial court also heard testimony from the case
manager that Jacob was still struggling to meet the conditions for Shawn’s return,
and more specifically, there were ongoing concerns regarding Jacob’s anger and

17
No. 2022AP802

the safety of the home that Jacob was able to provide. Jacob fails to recognize any
of this testimony in making his argument, and therefore, this court rejects his
argument that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating his
parental rights, as the argument fails to recognize any of the testimony in the
record that does support the trial court’s discretionary decision.

¶41 Furthermore, Jacob asserts that the trial court placed “excessive
emphasis” on events predating Shawn’s birth and attributed Lauren’s failures to
Jacob. This argument misconstrues the trial court’s reasoning provided at the
disposition hearing. Rather than attribute Lauren’s failures to Jacob, the trial court
found that Jacob failed to protect Shawn from Lauren’s drug abuse by continuing
his relationship with her and leaving Shawn in her care. The trial court was
concerned about Jacob’s decision to continue a relationship with Lauren and
Jacob’s failure to recognize the signs of Lauren’s drug abuse, the dangers that it
presented in the home, and Jacob’s seeming indifference to exposing Shawn to
this environment.10 Thus, it was not Lauren’s failures that were assigned to Jacob.
Instead, it was Jacob’s failures in allowing Lauren in his home and exposing
Shawn to drug abuse, and failing to fulfill his protective role as a parent.

10
In fact, as to Jacob’s failure to recognize signs of Lauren’s drug abuse, the trial court
found that Jacob was unaware that Lauren was using drugs during her pregnancy with Shawn.
Additionally, when Lauren was hospitalized during her pregnancy, she slipped out of the hospital
to obtain cocaine, and Jacob was similarly unaware that Lauren left the hospital. Furthermore,
there was testimony by a case manager at the grounds trial in regards to a discussion she had with
Jacob about Lauren’s substance abuse where Jacob indicated that he did not know where Lauren
was obtaining drugs because he was home with her.

18
No. 2022AP802

CONCLUSION

¶42 In sum, this court rejects Jacob’s arguments that there was
insufficient evidence at the grounds trial to support the jury’s verdicts and that the
trial court erroneously exercised its discretion at the disposition hearing. In only
providing his own favorable testimony to support his arguments, Jacob ignores the
extensive testimony provided by the case managers and others throughout these
proceedings. Moreover, because this testimony as a whole often contradicted
Jacob’s own testimony, Jacob failed to provide a full picture of the testimony
introduced at the grounds trial and the disposition hearing, and Jacob has provided
a misleading picture of the evidence introduced over the course of these
proceedings. Thus, this court concludes that the evidence was sufficient to support
the jury’s verdicts rendered at the grounds trial and concludes that the trial court
did not erroneously exercise its discretion at the disposition hearing when it
terminated Jacob’s parental rights. Consequently, the order of the trial court is
affirmed.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

19