Background
K.T.R., referred to as Keenan, was the biological father of Kendra, who was born in October 2022. Keenan and Kendra’s mother had a history of domestic violence, and criminal bond and probation conditions barred Keenan from contacting the mother, her family, or Kendra. Keenan was incarcerated at Kendra’s birth and had further periods of incarceration.
The State petitioned to terminate Keenan’s parental rights on failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility, continuing-CHIPS, and abandonment grounds. A jury rejected the continuing-CHIPS ground after finding it impossible for Keenan to satisfy all conditions of return, and rejected abandonment. But it found that Keenan had failed to assume parental responsibility. The circuit court denied Keenan’s postverdict motion and later terminated his rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. The jury’s finding that certain CHIPS return conditions were impossible did not entitle Keenan to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the separate failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground.
Under Wisconsin Statute § 48.415(6), the inquiry is whether the parent had a substantial parental relationship with the child under the totality of the circumstances. No-contact orders and incarceration were relevant circumstances, and the jury was instructed to consider whether they prohibited or impeded Keenan’s efforts. But they were not an automatic defense, unlike the express tolling rule applicable to the abandonment statute. The court also rejected Keenan’s as-applied constitutional challenge because the unfitness finding rested on an individualized assessment, not the no-contact orders alone.
Key Takeaways
- An impossibility finding on a continuing-CHIPS ground does not automatically defeat a failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground.
- No-contact orders may be considered in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, but do not categorically excuse a lack of parental responsibility.
- The factfinder may consider conduct beyond direct contact with the child, including concern for the child or mother, criminal conduct, and efforts to address barriers to parenting.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes Wisconsin’s TPR grounds and confirms that statutory protections tied to abandonment do not transfer to failure to assume parental responsibility. A parent’s inability to have direct contact with a child remains important evidence, but the court will assess whether the parent nevertheless undertook available efforts to accept significant responsibility for the child’s care and well-being.