COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

March 19, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

Cir. Ct. Nos. 2022TP57

2022TP58

2022TP59

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

APPEAL NO. 2023AP2404

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K.S., A PERSON UNDER 

THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

K.P.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

2

APPEAL NO. 2023AP2405

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K.P., A PERSON UNDER 

THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

K.P.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL NO. 2023AP2406

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K.P., A PERSON UNDER 

THE AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

K.P.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

MARSHALL B. MURRAY, Judge. Affirmed. 
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

3

¶1 GEENEN, J.1 Kevin appeals from circuit court orders terminating 

his parental rights to his children, Keanu, Kyle, and Keith.

2

 Kevin argues that the 

circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that the 

termination of Kevin’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. 

Specifically, Kevin argues that termination was not in the children’s best interests 

because he there was evidence—his own testimony—that there was a substantial 

relationship between himself and the children, and because there was a lack of 

evidence of the children’s wishes. This court disagrees, and for the following 

reasons, affirms the circuit court’s orders. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 On March 17, 2022, the State filed petitions to terminate Kevin’s 

parental rights to Keanu, Kyle, and Keith.

3

 Kevin was charged with child neglect 

related to Keanu in May 2020, prompting the Division of Milwaukee Child 

Protective Services to prohibit Kevin from spending time with the children 

unsupervised. The CHIPS4cases underlying the petitions were initiated and the 

children were removed from the family home in September 2020 after doctors

discovered that Kyle and Keith each suffered from broken bones in their legs

 

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, the family in this confidential matter is referred to using 

pseudonyms. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(g).

3

 The State also sought to terminate the parental rights of the children’s mother; 

however, the mother’s rights are not at issue on this appeal. 

4

 CHIPS is an 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 Cnty. v. 

Tammy C., 219 Wis. 2d 206, 208 n.1, 579 N.W.2d 635 (1998). 
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

4

caused by their mother. At the time of removal, Keanu was twenty months old, 

and Kyle and Keith were five months old. 

¶3 At the grounds hearing on February 27, 2023, Kevin entered a nocontest plea to the failure to assume parental responsibility ground. See WIS.

STAT. § 48.415(6). The circuit court accepted Kevin’s plea, and after hearing 

testimony to prove this ground on August 9, 2023, found Kevin unfit pursuant to 

WIS. STAT. § 48.424(4). The circuit court then moved to the dispositional phase 

of termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. 

¶4 On June 30, 2023, a bonding assessment was conducted by a 

therapist to determine the type of relationship Keanu, Kyle, and Keith have with 

Kevin. In the bonding assessment report the therapist stated that the children all 

displayed insecure attachment styles with Kevin. As a result of her observations, 

she concluded that the children would likely be unable to “thrive emotionally or 

socially” under Kevin’s care unless he makes specific changes such as taking 

accountability for his actions, acknowledging each child’s emotions without 

displaying aggression, and forgoing physical discipline. The therapist noted that 

Kevin had failed to acknowledge that any violence occurred around the children, 

minimized his own actions, and failed to recognize how his actions impacted 

others. She explained that it takes time to make these changes and estimated that 

it would take approximately two years for Kevin to make and maintain her

recommended changes. 

¶5 The circuit court held two dispositional hearings on August 9 

and 11, 2023. The circuit court heard testimony from the therapist who conducted 

the bonding assessment, the case supervisor, Keanu’s foster mother, Kyle’s and 

Keith’s foster mother, the children’s biological mother, and Kevin. After 
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

5

reviewing the testimony and evidence, the circuit court concluded that it was in the 

best interests of Keanu, Kyle, and Keith to terminate Kevin’s parental rights. 

¶6 The circuit court noted that Kevin has struggled with trauma, 

alcohol, and drug issues that are “holding [him] down.” It emphasized that Kevin 

is not a bad person; rather, he is someone who has not figured out how to unlearn 

some bad behaviors. The circuit court acknowledged that Kevin had “come up 

with a way to deal with his alcohol and drug issues.” However, the circuit court 

also discussed how Kevin had not yet figured out how to resolve his behaviors 

related to domestic violence. The circuit court highlighted the therapist’s 

conclusion from the bonding assessment that the children did not have a parental 

attachment to Kevin, and that they would not have a stronger attachment until 

Kevin is able to make some changes including taking accountability for his 

actions. The circuit court then explained its decision by going through each factor 

in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3) for each child. 

¶7 The circuit court considered that all three children have a strong 

likelihood of adoption, the ages and health of the children, that the children had 

been in out-of-home care for nearly three years and did not have a substantial 

relationship with any biological family members, that the potential harm from 

severing Kevin’s legal relationship to the children is “minimal,” and that 

terminating Kevin’s parental rights would allow the children to enter a more stable 

and permanent family relationship. The circuit court also noted that Keanu 

wanted to be adopted and live with his foster parents because he said he feels safe

there, and noted that Kyle and Keith were too young to express their wishes on the 

matter. Thus, the circuit court concluded that, in light of all of the facts, 

terminating Kevin’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

6

¶8 Kevin now appeals the circuit court’s orders.

DISCUSSION

¶9 Kevin takes issue with the second phase of TPR proceedings, the 

dispositional phase.5 At the dispositional phase, the circuit court must consider the 

evidence and make a record that “reflect[s] adequate consideration of and weight 

to each factor” in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 

¶35, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475; Sheboygan Cnty. DHHS v. Julie A.B., 

2002 WI 95, ¶29, 255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 402. These factors include the 

following: 

(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 these relationships.

(d) The wishes of the child.

(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 current placement, the likelihood of future 

placements and the results of prior placements.

 

5

 “[A] contested termination proceeding involves a two-step procedure. The first step is 

the fact-finding hearing to ‘determine whether grounds exist for the termination of parental 

rights.’” Sheboygan Cnty. DHHS v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95, ¶24, 255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 

402 (citation omitted). “When the fact-finding step has been completed and the court has made a 

finding of unfitness, the proceeding moves to the second step, the dispositional hearing.” Id.,

¶28.
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

7

Sec. 48.426(3). The primary focus in the dispositional phase is on the best 

interests of the child. Julie A.B., 255 Wis. 2d 170, ¶28.

¶10 Kevin argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion

asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s findings 

on the third and fourth statutory factors enumerated in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). 

Though we only individually address the factors Kevin challenges, our 

independent review of the records confirms that the circuit court adequately 

considered all of the statutorily required factors. We conclude that the circuit 

court’s findings concerning the children’s wishes and the lack of a substantial 

relationship between Kevin and the children are sufficiently supported by the 

evidence. 

¶11 The circuit court exercises its discretion by weighing factors at the 

dispositional hearing to make its ultimate determination of whether to terminate 

parental rights. Gerald O. v. Cindy R., 203 Wis. 2d 148, 152, 551 N.W.2d 855 

(Ct. App. 1996). Wisconsin law does not “mandate the relative weight” to be 

placed on any particular factor. Margaret H., 234 Wis. 2d 606, ¶29. “An 

appellate 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. 

¶12 “A 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.” Dane 

Cnty. DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶39, 346 Wis. 2d 396, 828 N.W.2d 198. 

“We will search the record for reasons to sustain the [circuit] court’s exercise of 
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

8

discretion.” Lofthus v. Lofthus, 2004 WI App 65, ¶21, 270 Wis. 2d 515, 678 

N.W.2d 393.

¶13 Kevin argues that the evidence supports the existence of a 

substantial relationship between himself and his children. See WIS. STAT.

§ 48.426(3)(c). In support of his argument, Kevin points to his testimony during 

the dispositional hearing where he discussed the steps he took and his great 

progress toward reunification, his visitation with the children, his experiences with 

the children during visitation, and his belief that he plays a significant part in the 

children’s lives. Kevin concludes that in light of his testimony, the third factor, 

§ 48.426(3)(c), should not weigh in favor of the termination of his parental rights. 

¶14 After considering all of the testimony given during the dispositional 

hearing, the circuit court concluded that none of the children had a substantial 

relationship with Kevin. In particular, the circuit court relied on the expert 

testimony of the therapist who conducted the bonding assessment between Kevin 

and the children. The therapist testified that the children “don’t present as having 

a substantial attachment or substantial relationship with either of their two 

biological parents.” The therapist explained that Kyle and Keith view Kevin more 

like an extended family member than a parent. Regarding Keanu, the therapist 

testified about how acts of violence, such as “[Kevin] whooping [Keanu] [and] 

locking him in a closet,” negatively impacted their relationship. 

¶15 Testimony from the other witnesses also supports the circuit court’s 

finding. The case supervisor characterized Kevin’s relationship with the children 

as “inconsistent and distant.” Both Keanu’s foster mother and Kyle’s and Keith’s 

foster mother testified that the children do not talk about Kevin outside of visits

with him. The court also considered other evidence and indicia of the relationship. 
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

9

For example, it noted that the children had been in out-of-home care for about 

three years, which is the majority of the children’s lives. Kevin’s visits with 

Keanu had progressed to partially unsupervised; however, visits were suspended 

and converted to therapeutic visitations after Kevin used excessive physical 

discipline during visits. In the eight months between the time Kevin’s visits 

resumed and the start of the dispositional hearings, Kevin visited Keanu twice. 

¶16 Regarding Kyle and Keith, Kevin had supervised visits scheduled 

for twice a week but did not always participate. Kevin failed to show 

improvement with controlling his aggression during these visits. Relatedly, the 

bonding assessment discussed how this aggression impairs the children’s ability to 

form a secure relationship with Kevin. Thus, the circuit court’s finding that Kevin 

did not have a substantial relationship with the children is well supported by the 

evidence.

¶17 To the extent that Kevin is arguing that the circuit court should have 

given his testimony more weight than the testimony of the other witnesses when it 

considered WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(c), we note that “[a] determination of the best 

interests of the child in a termination proceeding depends on first-hand 

observation and experience with the persons involved[.]” David S. v. Laura S., 

179 Wis. 2d 114, 150, 507 N.W.2d 94 (1993). We give due regard “to the 

opportunity of the [circuit] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” WIS.

STAT. § 805.17(2). The records reflect that the circuit court appropriately 

considered Kevin’s testimony in the context of the other testimony given and as 

relevant to § 48.426(3)(c). The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its 

discretion with the weight it gave Kevin’s testimony when it evaluated whether the 

children had a substantial relationship with Kevin.
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

10

¶18 Kevin also stresses that “there was no evidence of the wishes of the 

children.” See WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(d). However, there was evidence of the 

children’s wishes presented to the circuit court. While Kyle and Keith were both 

only three years old at the time of the hearings, and thus too young to express their 

wishes, there was evidence presented regarding Keanu’s wishes. 

¶19 In the bonding assessment, the therapist described a conversation 

with Keanu where she asked him “if he was allowed to choose where he would 

choose to live and [she] gave the options of [his mother], [Kevin], and his foster 

parents. [Keanu] stated he wanted to live with his foster parents as he feels it is 

safe with them.” The therapist also addressed this conversation in her testimony. 

Additionally, Keanu’s foster mother testified that Keanu told her that he wanted to 

stay with her. This evidence is sufficient to support the circuit court’s 

consideration of the children’s wishes. See WIS. STAT. § 48.299(4)(b) (“[N]either 

common law nor statutory rules of evidence are binding at a ... dispositional 

hearing .... Hearsay evidence may be admitted[.]”).

CONCLUSION

¶20 After reviewing the records, it is clear that the circuit court did not 

erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined that terminating Kevin’s 

parental rights was in each child’s best interests. Ultimately, 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. See Mable K., 346 Wis. 2d 396, ¶39. Accordingly, we affirm.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
Nos. 2023AP2404

2023AP2405

2023AP2406

11

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.