T.R.D. challenges the circuit court’s conclusions that she was an unfit parent and that it was in the best interests of her child for T.R.D.’s parental rights to be terminated. The court of appeals rejects the challenges.
In a lengthy, fact-intensive discussion we won’t attempt to summarize here, the court of appeals addresses the elements of each of the three alleged grounds for termination and why the evidence supported the circuit court’s conclusion that the ground was proved. The three grounds were: continuing need for protection and services under § 48.415(2)(a) (addressed at ¶¶9-23); failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6) (addressed at ¶¶25-27); and abandonment under § 48.415(1)(a)3. (addressed at ¶¶28-30).
T.R.D.’s challenge to the termination disposition is also rejected, as the court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in ordering termination. The circuit court specifically considered each of the factors under § 48.426(3) (¶¶33-37) as well as dispositional outcomes other than termination (¶38). Based on that “careful consideration” the circuit court properly exercised its discretion (¶39).