Background
In June 2023, the mother, S.G. (referred to as Stephanie), gave birth to a son, D.L.P. (David). Due to concerns about Stephanie’s caregiving ability and domestic violence, the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) placed David in out-of-home care shortly after his birth. A court found David to be a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered Stephanie to meet certain conditions for his return. The order also required DMCW to make reasonable efforts to provide her with services, including parenting classes, therapy, and domestic violence counseling.
A psychological evaluation diagnosed Stephanie with a mild intellectual development disorder and recommended that services be adapted for her cognitive difficulties. DMCW referred her to programs like Comprehensive Community Services (CCS), which specializes in assisting adults with cognitive delays, and provided one-on-one parenting support. Despite these services, Stephanie struggled to demonstrate improvement in her parenting skills during visits, missed numerous scheduled visitations with her son, and never progressed beyond fully supervised visits.
In August 2024, the State filed a petition to terminate Stephanie’s parental rights on the grounds of Continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. The circuit court granted the petition, finding Stephanie unfit and that termination was in David’s best interests. Stephanie appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the termination.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating Stephanie’s parental rights. The court rejected Stephanie’s primary argument that DMCW had failed to make a “reasonable effort” to provide her with court-ordered services tailored to her diagnosed cognitive limitations. The standard for a “reasonable effort” requires an earnest and conscientious effort, considering the parent’s characteristics and level of cooperation.
The court found that DMCW had met this standard. It highlighted that DMCW enrolled Stephanie in CCS, a specialized program for adults with cognitive delays, and specifically referred her to one-on-one parenting assistance so that concepts could be repeated and reinforced, in line with the psychologist’s recommendations. DMCW also requested that her individualized therapy through CCS focus on domestic violence and safe relationships. The court noted that Stephanie’s own inconsistent attendance at therapy undermined her argument that the agency’s efforts were inadequate.
Because the court concluded there was sufficient credible evidence to support the “Continuing CHIPS” ground for termination, it upheld the circuit court’s decision. It therefore did not need to address the second alleged ground of failure to assume parental responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- A child welfare agency’s duty to make “reasonable efforts” to provide services to a parent requires accommodating the parent’s specific characteristics, such as cognitive limitations.
- Providing access to specialized programs for adults with cognitive delays, one-on-one instruction, and individualized therapy can satisfy the “reasonable effort” standard.
- A parent’s inconsistent cooperation and failure to engage with the services provided can weigh against their claim that the agency’s efforts were unreasonable.
- Courts only need to find sufficient evidence for one statutory ground to affirm a termination of parental rights.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the “reasonable effort” standard in termination of parental rights cases, particularly when a parent has cognitive disabilities. It underscores that while child welfare agencies must provide tailored and accessible services, they are not required to guarantee a parent’s success. The responsibility is to make a “good faith” effort to provide appropriate support.
The case serves as a reminder that the legal process in child welfare cases balances parental rights with the child’s need for safety, stability, and permanency. Even when specialized services are provided, a parent’s failure to make substantive progress and address the conditions that led to the child’s removal can result in the termination of their rights in favor of the child’s best interests.