Background
S.B.T. appealed an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, K.R. S.B.T. did not appear on time for the grounds trial. Her attorney later located her and brought her to court, but she did not appear lucid, and the circuit court ordered drug testing. A snow emergency forced an adjournment until the next day, when S.B.T. again failed to appear; her drug test was positive for cocaine. Based on her repeated failures to attend proceedings, the circuit court found her in default.
The circuit court later conducted a belated prove-up after denying S.B.T.’s motion to vacate the default. Her attorney objected but did not present evidence or cross-examine the State’s sole witness. At disposition, the court terminated S.B.T.’s parental rights but continued K.R.’s successful foster placement under a guardianship while awaiting developments concerning the placement of K.R.’s sister, K.T.R., in hopes the sisters might eventually join the same family.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the default ruling and the denial of S.B.T.’s motion to vacate it. Default may be imposed for egregious conduct, and the circuit court reasonably determined that S.B.T.’s repeated failures to comply with directives to attend hearings met that standard. Although S.B.T. cited homelessness, recent childbirth, addiction, and other difficult circumstances, the circuit court considered those matters and found they did not specifically explain her absence on the trial date. The appellate court also concluded that the record supported an implicit finding that S.B.T. had notice of the rescheduled proceeding.
The court declined to examine independently the delayed prove-up or the limited participation by S.B.T. and her attorney because she had not adequately developed those issues on appeal. It also rejected her challenge to the disposition. Uncertainty about K.R.’s eventual adoptive placement did not prevent the circuit court from finding termination in K.R.’s best interests. The circuit court reasonably found adoption very likely, viewed either interested family as offering greater stability and permanence than preserving S.B.T.’s rights, and considered the relevant statutory factors, including K.R.’s current stability and potential relationship with her sister.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s repeated failure to attend required termination proceedings may constitute egregious conduct supporting default.
- General hardships do not compel vacating a default when the circuit court considers them and reasonably finds they do not explain the relevant absence.
- Uncertainty about a child’s eventual adoptive placement does not preclude termination when the statutory best-interests factors support greater stability and permanence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Wisconsin appellate courts give discretionary rulings on default and motions to vacate in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. It also underscores that appellate courts may decline to address concerns about procedure or counsel’s participation when the appellant has not developed those issues as independent claims.
The opinion further confirms that a circuit court need not identify a final adoptive placement before determining that termination serves a child’s best interests. Placement uncertainty may be weighed alongside adoption prospects, family relationships, and the child’s need for a stable and permanent home.