COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

September 12, 2023

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. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

Cir. Ct. Nos. 2021TP126

2021TP127

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

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

AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

R. T.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

2

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

AGE OF 18:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

R. T.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

MARSHALL B. MURRAY, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 WHITE, J.1 Richard appeals the orders terminating his parental 

rights to his son, Adam, and his daughter, Annie.2 Richard argues that the circuit 

court erroneously exercised its discretion when it concluded that terminating his 

parental rights was in the best interests of the children because he asserts there was 

not support in the record for the court’s conclusions. Upon review, we affirm.

 

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 maintain confidentiality, we employ pseudonyms for the 

children and parents in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86(1). Additionally, although there 

is an appeal and order for each child, we refer to the case in the singular for ease of reading. 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

3

BACKGROUND

¶2 In May 2020, the Division of Milwaukee Child Protective Services 

(DMCPS) detained Adam, born in May 2013, and Annie, born in April 2014, then 

ages seven and six, when they were found in a non-moving car with their parents 

passed out. Richard and Joanna had ongoing drug problems and repeated 

interactions with DMCPS and the police. In May 2021, the State filed the petition 

to terminate Richard and Joanna’s parental rights.

3

 The petition for the 

termination of parental rights (TPR) alleged two grounds: continuing child in 

need of protection of services (CHIPS), and failure to assume parental 

responsibility.

¶3 On July 1, 2022, Richard entered a no contest plea to the ground of 

continuing CHIPS. The State relied upon the case manager’s testimony to prove 

the ground of the petition; accordingly, the court found Richard unfit.

¶4 In November 2022, the court held the dispositional phase of the case 

over two days. The State called the children’s foster mother and the case manager 

to testify. The case manager testified that the children had gone on several visits 

with Richard’s mother; but each child expressed that they did not want to be 

placed to live with their grandmother. The case manager testified that the children 

had not been in contact with Richard since June 2021, but that he had written them 

a letter. She testified that the paternal grandmother was deemed safe for visits in 

her home, she was interested in placement with the children, and she was willing 

to move to a larger residence if the children were placed with her. Richard and 

 

3

 The State also petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the children’s mother, 

Joanna. Her case is not on appeal before this court. 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

4

Joanna each testified on their own behalf.4 Richard’s counsel called his mother

and his sister to testify.

¶5 At the final hearing date in February 2022, the court addressed the 

statutory considerations of WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)5related to the termination of 

parental rights. For the first two factors, the court found that the children were 

“likely to be adopted” if the TPR were granted and there did “not appear to be any 

age or physical or psychological barriers” to either child being adopted by the 

foster parents.

 

4

 In January 2022, Richard participated in three supervised visits with the children. 

Richard had been released from incarceration, where he had been held since shortly after the 

petition was filed. However, Richard relapsed, stole his sister’s car, and was returned to jail, 

where he participated in the final day of the dispositional phase in February 2022.

5

 In determining the disposition of a TPR petition, the circuit court must consider, but is 

not limited to, the following six factors:

(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.

WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3).
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

5

¶6 Next, the court addressed how long the children had been removed 

from their parents’ care, under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(e). The court found that 

the children had been removed from their parents’ care in May 2020, when the 

children were ages seven and six, and remained in out-of-home care since then. 

The court considered the removals from the parents to have been “a significant 

amount of time” because even a year or two was significant at their young ages. 

The court also noted that the children had previously been removed in 2014 due to 

their parent’s drug addictions and reunified in 2015. The court found that the 

parents had lost two older children to termination. 

¶7 The court noted that after an eviction in October 2019, the family 

moved in with Richard’s mother, who appeared not to recognize the parents’ drug 

problems. The court observed that while Richard said his mother said to let her 

keep the children when they moved out, she did not testify to that fact nor did a 

letter she wrote to the court concerning the case state that request. The court 

expressed concern that Richard’s mother knew that her son and the children had 

no place to live other than a car, but she did not seek help from CPS. The court 

observed that Richard’s mother “should have known” about the drug issues and 

the risks.

¶8 Next, the court found that pursuant to the considerations of WIS.

STAT. § 48.426(3)(c), the children did not have a significant relationship with their 

parents “because of drugs and other things got in the way to have a significant or 

substantial relationship[.]” The court noted that Richard “got himself incarcerated 

and that [took] him away from his children” and that “[n]either parent made 

themselves available for services and visitation for a significant amount of time.” 

The court expressed that it was good Richard had recently had a visits with the 

children, but he is struggling with addiction “and he needs help but while he needs 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

6

help, his children need stability.” The court found that “the relationship [the 

children] have with each other is the most significant relationship” and they are 

together at the foster placement. They know their parents and their paternal 

grandmother, and it hoped that the foster parents can maintain relationships for the 

children with their biological family members. The court found that because 

neither child had a significant relationship with either parent, severing the legal 

relationship would not harm the children. 

¶9 Next, the court addressed the wishes of the children, pursuant to 

WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(d). Adam, now aged nine, and Annie, aged eight, 

expressed to the case manager that they wished to stay with the foster parents and 

not live with their grandmother. Adam and Annie had “a significant bond with the 

caregivers and it appears [they have] adjusted well in their home. I want to say to 

[Adam and Annie] that the Court hears [them] and has heard what [they] had to 

say.

¶10 For the final factor under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(f), the court found 

that the children would be “able to enter into a stable and permanent family 

relationship” if the TPR were granted because without that, the children “would 

languish in foster care” because neither Richard nor Joanna were “close to meeting 

their conditions for safe return of the children to their home[.]” The court 

considered that the parents are still dealing with drug issues. Further, the court 

concluded that because the parents had gone through a previous TPR case, they 

were aware of the stakes of these proceedings. 

¶11 The court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children 

that the parental rights of both Richard and Joanna be terminated. This appeal 

follows.
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

7

DISCUSSION

¶12 Richard argues that there was no support in the record for the court’s 

finding that it was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be 

terminated. He contends that the court did not sufficiently account for the fact that 

he continues to express love and a desire to have his children returned to this care 

when he is released from incarceration or to have the children move to his family’s 

care. He argues that the court did not give sufficient weight to the efforts he 

previously made to improve his circumstances and his efforts to continue as a 

significant factor in his children’s lives.

¶13 Termination of parental rights is governed by the Wisconsin 

Children’s Code. The first step is a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the 

grounds exist to terminate parental rights exist. See WIS. STAT. §§ 48.415, 48.424. 

Here, Richard pled no contest that the State could prove the continuing CHIPS 

ground. The second step is the dispositional phase, in which the circuit court 

decides whether the evidence warrants the termination of parental rights and if the 

termination is in the best interests of the child. Evelyn C.R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 

110, ¶23, 246 Wis. 2d 1, 629 N.W.2d 768. “During this step, the best interests of 

the child are paramount.” Id. The circuit court is required to consider at least the 

six factors for consideration in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3). “[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. 

¶14 “The ultimate determination of whether to terminate parental rights 

is discretionary with the circuit court.” Id, ¶27. We will sustain a circuit court’s 

discretionary decision unless the court erroneously exercised its discretion. WIS.

STAT. § 805.17(2). “A circuit court properly exercises its discretion when it 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

8

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 County DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶39, 346 Wis. 2d 396, 828 

N.W.2d 198. 

¶15 Richard’s first argument is that the record does not support the 

court’s findings. We disagree. The circuit court carefully reviewed and 

considered on the record the six statutory factors and the overarching question of 

the best interests of the children. The court considered that the children were 

adoptable and that the foster parents were ready to adopt them. The court 

considered that Richard’s drug addiction and resulting incarceration meant that the 

children had been separated from him for several years. The court considered that 

the children expressed a desire to be adopted by their current foster parents and not 

be placed with their paternal grandmother. The court stated in the record directly 

to the children “that the [c]ourt hears [them] and has heard what [they] had to say” 

about their placement. The court considered that the children would most likely

languish in foster care if the TPR were not granted. We concluded there was 

ample support in the record for the court’s decision. 

¶16 Richard next argues that the court did not sufficiently account for his 

love for his children and his desire for their return when he was out of jail. A 

parent’s love is not the defining question when the court contemplates terminating 

parental rights. Although “parent’s rights are paramount,” in the grounds phase, 

Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis. 2d 1, ¶22, Richard does not argue that the grounds phase 

for the TPR was not satisfied. The court was not being asked to determine 

Richard’s love and desire to be with his children, but instead, “one of the most 

wrenching and agonizing [decisions] in the law”—whether termination is in the 

children’s best interests. Sheboygan Cnty. v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95, ¶¶23, 29, 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

9

255 Wis. 2d 170, 648 N.W.2d 402. Richard’s argument fails because it subverts 

the question asked of the court. 

¶17 Further, Richard argues that the court did not give weight to his 

desire to have his mother or sister gain custody or placement of the children. Our 

examination of the record shows that the circuit court had concerns about when 

Richard’s mother’s awareness of the parents’ drug addition prior to the detainment 

of the children in May 2020, her willingness to take care of the children when 

there was DMCPS contact in March 2020, and his mother’s failed guardianship of 

Richard’s older child in about 2009-2010. The record reflects that the court 

expressed hope that the foster/adoptive parents would continue to maintain a 

relationship with the children’s extended family. We conclude that the circuit 

court’s considerations were based in the children’s best interests and that 

Richard’s desires have no legal basis to overcome the court’s considerations.

¶18 Finally, Richard argues that the court did not give sufficient weight 

to the efforts he previously made to improve his circumstances and his efforts to 

continue as a significant factor in his children’s lives. Again, we conclude that 

Richard asks the court to center his interests, not his children’s. Wisconsin law 

does not “mandate the relative weight” to be on any particular factor. Margaret 

H., 234 Wis. 2d 606, ¶29. The reviewing court’s function is to ensure each factor 

was considered, not to weigh the factors in our own substituted judgment. Here, 

the circuit court acknowledged Richard’s struggles with drug addiction, an illness 

that has taken him from his children. However, the court also found the children’s 

need for stability and the children’s wishes to weigh heavily in favor of 

termination being in the children’s best interests. We discern no reason in the 

record or the law to disturb the court’s findings. 
Nos. 2023AP1095

2023AP1096

10

CONCLUSION

¶19 For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the circuit court’s 

order terminating Richard’s parental rights was not an erroneous exercise of 

discretion and we affirm. We conclude that the record demonstrates that the court 

considered the relevant facts raised in testimony and evidence, it applied the 

proper standard of law, and it reached a reasonable decision showing rational 

decision-making. See Mable K., 346 Wis. 2d 396, ¶39. 

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

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

809.23(1)(b)4.