### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 2, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff 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 W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No s . 2021AP1231

2021AP1232 2021AP1233 Cir. Ct. No s . 2020TP44 2020TP45 2020TP46
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I

I N RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO P.G., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

S TATE OF W ISCONSIN ,

P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V . P.G.,

R ESPONDENT - A PPELLANT .

I N RE THE TER MINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J .G., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

S TATE OF W ISCONSIN ,

P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V . P.G.,Nos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

2 R ESPONDENT - A PPELLANT .

I N RE THE TER MINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J .G., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

S TATE OF W ISCONSIN ,

P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V . P.G.,

R ESPONDENT - A PPELLANT .

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

. ¶ 1 BRASH, C.J. 1 P.G. appeals the orders of the trial court terminating his parental rights to P.G., Jr., and twins J.G. and J.G. He argues that the petitions filed by the State seeking t o terminate his parental rights to the children were insufficiently specific to meet the requirements of W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.42(1)( c )2. He also argues that the COVID

- 19 pandemic interfered with his ability to complete the conditions required for reunification with the children, and therefore his right to due process was violated. Upon review, we affirm.

1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2)( e) (2019

- 20). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019

- 20 version unless otherwise noted.Nos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

3 B ACKGROUND
¶ 2 P.G. is the adjudicated father of P.G., Jr., born in May 2017, and the biological father of twins J.G. and J. G., who were born in April 2018. P.G. and the children’s mother, S.T., have lived together since 2017. S.T.’s parental rights
were also terminate d under the orders that underlie this appeal. 2

¶ 3 The children were detained by the Division of Milwaukee Child Protective Services (DMCPS) in September 2018 after S.T. brought one of the twins to the emergency room at Children’s Hospita l with severe burns over “a sign ificant portion” of his body. S.T. explained to hospital staff that she was giving the twin a bath and did not realize the water was too hot. She did not immediately take the twin to the hospital because she did not think that the burn was significant; however, the skin that was burned was described as “blackened,
blistered , and pe eling,” and required surgery.

¶ 4 S.T. is “cognitively delayed.” She was charged with felony child neglect causing great bodil y harm after the incident with the burn but was found not guilty of that crime due to mental disease or defect and placed in community supervision for five years. Furthermore, S.T. has an extensive history with DMCPS. About ten years prior to this case, S.T. had another child who was removed from her custody a fter suffering first and second

- degree burns for which S.T. did not seek medical care; as a result, S.T.’s parental rights to that child and
another child were terminated in 2008. S.T. also had two children die of

2 S.T. also appealed the orders terminating her parental rights in a separate case.Nos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

4 suffocation from co

- sleeping, at different times, with one of those deaths
consider ed “suspicious[].”

¶ 5 T here were also current contacts with the family by DMCPS prior to the twin being burned. Because the twins were bo rn prematurely, they have medical conditions, including gastrointestinal issues , which were being monitored by DMCPS, and all three children have chromosomal abnormalities that could result in problems with their vision, which also require r egular clinical appointments. DMCPS was contacted in June 2018 after the twins missed two medical appointments and healthcare providers were not able to get in contact with the parents. Then in July 2018 it was reported that the twins were not being fed properly and th ey were “failing to thrive” as they have problems swallowing.

¶ 6 After the burn incident, the three children involved in this matter

were removed from their parents’ custody based on the potential for further “dangerous incidents” that c ould cause them harm, and petitions for protection or services (CHIPS) were filed. 3 The chil dren were placed in foster care as opposed to remaining with P.G., because it was suspected that P.G. also has cognitive delays , and because at the time, P.G. had an open case in Milwaukee County for disorderly conduct related to a domestic abuse incident occurring in August 2018. 4

3 Another child of P.G. and S.T.

— S., who was born in 2010

— was also removed from the home at that time. S. was not included in the order s for the termination of parental rights which underlie this appeal; rather, a transfer of guardianship of S. was pending at the time of these proceedings.

4 P.G. was charged with disorderly conduct after it was reported that he became “aggressive” with S.T. while he was intoxicated. The case was eventual ly dismissed.Nos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

5 ¶ 7 Dispositional orders relating to the CHIPS petitions were entered in June 2019, and listed a number of requirement s that had to be met by S.T. and P.G. before the children could be returned to their care. Those requirements for P.G. included completing a psychological evaluation, as well as taking parenting classes to assist him in being able to meet the requirements of demonstrating that he and S.T. could provide a safe home for the children and properly care for them. Additionally, there was a requirement for regular visitation with the children.

¶ 8 P.G. failed to meet those conditions, and petit ion s for the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) of S.T. and P.G. with regard to P.G., Jr.,
J.G. , and J.G. were filed in February 2020. In the TPR petitions, the State’s alleged grounds for termination included the continuing need of protection or services for the children, pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.415(2), and the failure of S.T. and P.G. to assume parental responsibility, pursuant to § 48.415(6).

¶ 9 Specifically, the petitions alleged that P. G. and S.T. had never been able to progress beyond fully supervised visits with the children. Furthermore, neither parent regularly attended the children’s medical appointments that are necessary to monitor their health issues.

¶ 10 Addit ionally, the State noted that P.G. “continues to have a relationship and live with” S.T., whose “significant cognitive delays” prevent her from being “trusted to provide safe care for the children if left alone for any period of time.” It alleged that P.G . “does not seem to understand that [S.T.]’s deficits and history of maltreatment/neglect impair her ability to understand and safely provide for the children’s needs.” Moreover, it was “suspected that [P.G.] may have some delays or cognitive limitations as well,” but that it was not clearNos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

6 whether he had completed a psychological evaluation, as required under the CHIPS orders, at the time the TPR petitions were filed.

¶ 11 At a preliminary hearing on the TPR petitions held in May 2020,

co unsel for S.T. challenged the sufficiency of the petitions, and P.G. joined that challenge. The trial court denied the motion. The court noted that many of the allegations against P.G. were incorporated from the allegations against S.T., but
observed tha t because P.G. had been living with S.T. since 2017, he “has essentially allowed these children to be exposed to that hazardous living environment.” The court further stated that the allegations in the petitions inferred that P.G. “doesn’t fully understan d the danger the children are subjected to if in fact they we re returned to the care of [S.T. ]

. ” Therefore, the court found that the petitions provided sufficiently specific allegations as to the claims against both
P.G. and S.T.

¶ 12 P.G . then filed a separate motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the COVID

- 19 pandemic had “adversely affected” his ability to satisfy the requirements of the CHIPS orders and, as a result, a finding of unfitness would
violate his due process rig hts. Specifically, P.G. claimed that the visitation condition was interrupted between March and June 2020 when the visits were switched to virtual; that he lost his job due to the pandemic and was unable to pay his rent, resulting in an eviction action be ing filed against him; and that his subsequent work schedule through a temporary employment agency kept him from timely completing his psychological evaluation.

¶ 13 At a pretrial conference hearing in January 2021, the t rial court
denied P.G.’s motion. The court stated that it was a matter for the fact

- finder to
determine whether the conditions of the CHIPS orders had been met, and P.G.Nos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

7 conceded that point. P.G. further acknowledged that the T PR petitions, which
listed hi s failure to mee t the CHIPS conditions as one ground for his parental rights being terminated, had been filed in February 2020

— before the stay

- at

- home mandates due to the pande mic were imposed

— and it was noted that the State’s burden for proving that ground would be based on the facts and circumstances at the time the petitions were filed.

¶ 14 A court trial regarding the grounds phase of the TPR proceedings was set for February 2021. However, just prior to the start of the trial, P.G. opted

to enter a no

- contest plea to the continuing CHIPS ground, with the State agreeing to dismiss the ground of failure to assume parental responsibility. At the subsequent dispositional phase of the proceedings, the trial court determined that it
was in the best interest s of the children that both P.G.’s and S.T.’s parental rights
be terminated. This appeal follows.

D ISCUSSION
¶ 15 The sufficiency of a TPR petition is a question of law that we review
de novo

. See Sheboygan Cnty. v. D.T. , 167 Wis. 2d 276, 282

- 83, 481 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1992) . Our review of whether a TPR petition is sufficient is dictated by the requirements set forth in W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.42(1). That statute requires that such petitions “set forth with specificity” the name, birth date , an d address of the child; the names and addresses of the child’s parents; information relating to the current custody of the child, as set forth in W IS

. S TAT

. § 822.29; information regarding whether the child may be subject to the federal Indian Child Welfar e Act; and, if the parents are not consenting to the termination of their parental rights, a
statement “ of the grounds for involuntary termina tion of parental rights underNos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

8 [ W IS

. S TAT

. § ] 48.415 and a statement of the facts and circumstances which the petit ioner alleges establish these grounds. ” See W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.42(1).

¶ 16 Citing State v. Courtney E. , 184 Wis. 2d 592, 516 N.W.2d 422 (1994) , P.G. asserts that a TPR petition must meet the same requirements as a criminal complaint ; that is , it “must contain facts ‘ which are themselves sufficient or give rise to reasonable inferences which are sufficient to establish probable

cause. ’ ” Id. at 601 (citation omitted). However, in Courtney E. , our supreme court was reviewing the sufficiency of a CHIPS petition, the requirements for which are governed by W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.255. See Courtney E. , 184 Wis. 2d at 601. In its analysis of that issue, the court stated that in order for a CHIPS petition to be sufficient, it must satisfy the requirements of § 48.255, and that “[i]n particular, the [CHIPS] petition must provide ‘reliable and credible information

w hich forms the basis of the allegations necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the
court ....” Courtney E. , 184 Wis. 2d at 600 (quoting § 48.255(1)(e)).

¶ 17 Thus, the court’s analysis in Courtney E. focused on the statutory requirement fo r a CHIPS petition to state with specificity the basis for the court to invoke jurisdiction over a child, similar to the requirement of a criminal complaint to specifically state the reasons a court may invoke jurisdiction over a defendant. That requireme nt is not included in the statutory requirements for a TPR petition,

see W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.42(1), presumably because at the time a TPR petition is filed, the court has already invoked jurisdiction over the child through a CHIPS petition and resulting disposi tional order.

¶ 18 P.G. argues that because both CHIPS petitions and TPR petitions “arise under Chapter 48, there is no reason to believe that the principles which apply to the sufficiency of one type of Chapter 48 petition would not apply withNos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

9 equal force to the sufficiency of another type.” We disagree. The statutes outlining the requirements for each type of petition, while similar, are different with respect to the addition of the requirement relating to the invocation of jurisdiction over the child for CHIPS petitions. According to the tenets of statutory interpretation, “[s] tatutory language is read where possible to give reasonable effect to every word, in order to avoid surplusage. ” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit C

t
. for Dane Cnty

. , 2004 WI 58, ¶46 , 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681
N.W.2d 110 . Adopting P.G.’s interpretation would render the additional requirement for CHIPS petitions regarding the invocation of jurisdiction mere surplusage. We cannot do that and still give W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.255 (1)(e) its “ full, proper, and intended effect. ” See State ex rel. Kalal , 271 Wis. 2d 633 , ¶44. Therefore, we reject P.G.’s contention that a TPR petition must rise to the level of a criminal complaint and establish probable cause for the alleged claims.

¶ 19 We thus review the TPR petitions for compliance with the requirements set forth in W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.42(1); specifically, whether the State set forth with specificity “ a statement of the facts and circumstances which the
pe titioner alleges establish [the] grounds” for the termination of P.G.’s parental rights. See § 48.42(1)(c)2. Furthermore, “ in reviewing the suf ficiency of a pleading in a juve nile court proceeding, we may draw reasonable inferences from the allegations in the petition. ” Monroe Cnty. v. Jennifer V. , 200 Wis. 2d 678, 684, 548 N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1996)

. ¶ 20 As the trial court did in its analysis of this issue, we reviewed the factors relating to the grounds alleged by the State to determine whether the petitions provided sufficient notice relative those factors. We conclude that the allegations in the TPR petitions as discussed in this opinion, and the reasonableNos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

10 inferences that can be drawn from those allegations, were sufficiently specific to provide P.G. with proper notice as to the grounds for the petitions.

¶ 21 We next turn to P.G.’s argument that the COVID

- 19 pandemic interfered with his ability to meet the conditions of the CHIPS orders, and thus the finding that he was an unfit parent violated his right to due process. “ Substantive due process has been traditionally affo rded to fundamental liberty interests, such as marriage, family, pro creation, and bodily integrity,” and an analysis of this issue seeks to “balance[] the [S]tate’ s compelling interests with its chosen method of protecting those interests. ” Monroe Cnty. DHS v. Kelli B. , 2004 WI 48, ¶19, 271 Wis. 2d 51, 678 N.W.2d 831. We independently review challenges to constitutional principles. State v. Pinno , 2014 WI 74, ¶ 36, 356 Wi s. 2d 106, 850
N.W.2d 207.

¶ 22 As the State points out, the current statute relating to the continuing CHIPS ground for TPRs no longer includes a provision relating to whether parents would be able to meet the required conditions in the nine month time period following a fact

- finding hearing. Thus, the fact

- finder is to c onsider the facts and circumstances of the case as they existed on the date the TPR petitions were filed.
See W IS JI

— C HILDREN 324 . In this case, that was February 27, 2020

— before the stay

- at

- home mandates were imposed due to COVID

- 19.

¶ 23 Nevertheless, P.G. had the opportunity to present evidence relating to the hardships he endured as a result of the pandemic at the disposition hearing.
See W IS

. S TAT

. § 48.427(1). Based on that evidence, he requested an alternative disposition

— that in stead of granting the TPR petitions, the CHIPS orders could instead remain in effect, such that that he and S.T. could continue working on meeting those conditions. See id. However, after weighing all the evidence inNos. 2021AP1231 2021AP1232 2021AP1233

11 terms of the relevant factors for det ermining whether the parental rights should be terminated, the trial court found that granting the TPR petitions was in t he children’s best interests.

¶ 24 Therefore, we conclude that P.G.’s due process rights were not violated during this process. See Kelli B. , 271 Wis. 2d 51, ¶19. Furthermore, the “ultimate determination of whether to terminate parental rights” is a discretionary
decision that lies with t he trial court. State v. Margaret H. , 2000 WI 42, ¶27, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475. The trial court erroneously exercises its discretion

“ if it does not examine the relevant facts, applies the wrong legal standard, or fails
to use a demonstrated rational process to reach a reasonable conclusion. ” Brown C n ty. v. Shannon R. , 2005 WI 160, ¶ 37, 286 Wis. 2d 278, 706 N.W.2d 269. That
did not occur here.

¶ 25 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders terminating the parental rights of P.G. to P.G., Jr., J.G., and J. G.

By the Court.

— Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.