Background
In December 2023, Pierce County filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Kevin to his daughter Kylie. The Department alleged grounds under Wisconsin Statute § 48.415(2)(a) (continuing need of protection or services) and § 48.415(6) (failure to assume parental responsibility). Kylie had been removed from her parents’ custody in October 2020 when she was two months old and placed in foster care with her current family, where she remained continuously. Kylie is medically fragile with significant ongoing healthcare needs and disabilities.
Kevin had been incarcerated on domestic violence charges related to conduct toward Kylie’s mother and was limited in his ability to participate in services during his incarceration. Following his release, Kevin struggled to comply with the conditions for Kylie’s safe return, including supervised visits, parental programming, substance abuse treatment, and completion of assessments. He frequently missed scheduled supervised visits with Kylie and failed to complete or follow through with recommended services. Kevin also relapsed on cocaine in June 2022, though he subsequently engaged in voluntary mental health and substance abuse services.
At trial, evidence showed that Kylie had been in her foster family’s care for nearly her entire life, was bonded to them as her parents, and was adoptable. An expert parenting assessment from 2021 noted Kevin’s physical limitations (a partially disabled hand) and serious mental health diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder), and recommended that Kylie not be returned to his care. A visit supervisor testified she had never recommended unsupervised contact due to safety concerns.
The Court’s Holding
A jury found that grounds for termination existed under both the continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility statutes. The circuit court then conducted a separate dispositional hearing and determined that termination of parental rights was in Kylie’s best interests, applying the statutory factors including the likelihood of adoption, the child’s age and health, substantial relationships, duration of separation, and prospects for a stable permanent family relationship. The court emphasized that Kylie had spent all but three months of her nearly five-year life with her foster family, that she was significantly bonded to them, and that termination would allow her to remain in the stable, permanent placement where she had always lived.
On appeal, Kevin raised three arguments: (1) insufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict on grounds, (2) erroneous exercise of discretion in finding termination was in Kylie’s best interests, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to an expert’s parenting assessment. The Court of Appeals affirmed on all three grounds. It found ample credible evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Kevin failed to comply with case plan conditions despite the County’s reasonable efforts to provide services. The court determined the circuit judge properly addressed each statutory best-interests factor with a rational process and demonstrable reasoning. Finally, it held that counsel’s strategic decision not to object to the expert testimony was a reasonable trial tactic intended to emphasize the age of the assessment and show County bias, not ineffective assistance.
Key Takeaways
- Parental non-compliance with court-ordered case plan conditions—including missed visits, failure to complete programming, and substance abuse violations—constitutes sufficient evidence to support TPR grounds even when a parent makes some progress in voluntary services.
- A child’s long-term bonding with a foster family, adoptability, and potential for permanent stability with current caregivers are powerful factors weighing in favor of TPR in the best-interests analysis.
- Trial counsel’s strategic decision not to object to evidence, even expert opinion on parental fitness, may constitute reasonable trial strategy rather than ineffective assistance, particularly when the strategy supports an overall narrative (here, County bias).
- Wisconsin’s strict bifurcation of the grounds phase and dispositional phase requires clear and convincing evidence of grounds before considering best interests, but counsel’s unfamiliarity with a specific case cite does not constitute deficiency when counsel understands the bifurcated procedure.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the considerable weight Wisconsin courts place on a child’s bonding and stability with long-term foster caregivers in TPR determinations. Courts will terminate parental rights when a parent has failed to meet case plan conditions over an extended period, even if the parent has engaged in some voluntary services or shown love for the child. The decision also protects trial attorneys’ reasonable strategic choices from appellate second-guessing, emphasizing that defense strategy need not include every possible objection and that choices to emphasize credibility attacks or evidentiary age gaps over formal objections fall within the wide latitude afforded trial counsel.
For practitioners, the case illustrates that TPR cases turn substantially on the factual question of whether the parent has complied with court-ordered conditions, that juries will find grounds supported by testimony about missed visits and failed programming, and that the best-interests determination in TPR is not a formality but requires genuine engagement with statutory factors. The decision also underscores that when a child has spent virtually all of their formative years in foster care and developed significant bonds, courts are unlikely to order reunification based solely on parental effort or best intentions, particularly when the child has complex medical or developmental needs that existing caregivers have successfully managed.