Background
J.J.T. was born in November 2020. After being adjudicated a child in need of protection and services in June 2022, he was placed first with C.J.T.’s sister for approximately 18 months and then moved to a foster home with potential adoptive parents. Both C.J.T. and the child’s mother were incarcerated for much of J.J.T.’s life. Waupaca County petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in July 2024. The mother voluntarily consented; the circuit court granted summary judgment against C.J.T. on abandonment grounds in March 2025, advancing the case to the dispositional phase.
At the disposition hearing, a County social worker testified that J.J.T. had not formed substantial relationships with either birth parent but had strong bonds with his potential adoptive family. C.J.T., still incarcerated, testified that he did not believe he had a meaningful relationship with J.J.T. but expressed concern about long-term harm to his son from growing up without birth parents, noted J.J.T.’s Native American heritage, and hoped that those who raised him could maintain contact with J.J.T. On cross-examination, C.J.T. acknowledged that adoption by the foster parents was in J.J.T.’s best interests, while his counsel maintained the petition should be dismissed.
The circuit court concluded that termination was in J.J.T.’s best interests and entered the TPR order. In explaining its ruling, the court expressly walked through five of the six statutory factors under WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)—likelihood of adoption, the child’s age, the child’s ability to express wishes, length of separation from birth parents, and prospects for a stable permanent family—but made no reference whatsoever to the third factor: whether the child has substantial relationships with the parent or other family members and whether severing those relationships would be harmful.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the TPR order and remanded for a new disposition hearing. The court held that a circuit court exercising its discretion in a TPR disposition must demonstrate consideration of all six factors enumerated in WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3), and that the record here showed no such consideration of the substantial-relationships factor. Because the statute commands that the court “shall consider” each factor, the complete omission of the third factor—rather than merely imprecise language about it—constituted a failure to apply the proper legal standard and thus an erroneous exercise of discretion.
The court rejected the County’s argument that the circuit court had implicitly considered the factor based on record evidence, distinguishing the unpublished decision in Waushara County DHS v. V.L. That case stood only for the proposition that courts need not recite each factor by “magic words”; it did not permit affirmance when a court said nothing at all reflecting consideration of a mandatory factor. The court also rejected the County’s alternative invitation to independently review the record and affirm on a preponderance-of-evidence basis, noting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Margaret H. expressed a preference for remand—particularly in family law matters—when faced with inadequate findings, and that contested credibility and weight determinations belong to the circuit court in the first instance.
The appellate court expressly declined to express any views on the merits of the best-interests determination on remand, leaving that question entirely open for the circuit court to resolve after properly considering all statutory factors.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin circuit courts must affirmatively demonstrate consideration of all six WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3) factors at a TPR disposition hearing; complete silence as to any one factor is reversible error, not merely imprecise drafting.
- The “no magic words” principle from prior case law means courts need not recite each factor by name or number, but it does not excuse a total failure to address a mandatory factor in any form.
- When a TPR disposition record lacks adequate findings, Wisconsin appellate courts will generally remand rather than independently weigh the evidence, given that best-interests determinations depend on firsthand observation and circuit court credibility assessments.
- The sparse but existing record of J.J.T.’s relationships with paternal family members—including 18 months living with his paternal aunt—made the omission of the substantial-relationships factor legally significant and not harmless.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the six-factor framework of WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3) imposes a genuine procedural obligation on circuit courts, not merely a checklist to be satisfied with boilerplate language. Attorneys representing parents in TPR proceedings should carefully review disposition transcripts to confirm that the circuit court addressed each factor on the record; the absence of any discussion—as opposed to an unfavorable finding—provides a viable appellate issue even where the parent’s own testimony acknowledged weaknesses in the relationship with the child.
The decision also reaffirms the appellate preference for remand in family law cases involving inadequate findings, signaling that Wisconsin courts of appeals are reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the circuit court’s on child welfare determinations. For county departments and practitioners handling TPR cases, the ruling underscores the importance of ensuring the disposition record is complete and that counsel prompts the court to address any statutory factor that testimony touched on—including the potential impact on extended family relationships.