Applying a deferential standard of review, COA holds that the circuit court did not err when it ordered a parent to comply with an out-of-state psychosexual evaluation/assessment as a condition of return.
M.B. entered an admission that two of his children were in need of protection and services pursuant to § 48.13(10). (¶3). Thereafter, he “stipulated to all of the County’s recommended conditions except for the condition that he ‘complete a psychosexual evaluation assessment and follow all recommendations of the assessment.'” (¶4). The court held a hearing on that condition and ultimately entered an order that M.B. comply with the recommendations of a Minnesota assessment conducted three years previously as a condition of return in this CHIPS case. (¶15). M.B. appeals.
To understand why this condition was requested, a little bit of background is in order. It turns out that M.B. has multiple Minnesota legal matters: (1) a conviction for “Contributing to Need for Protection or Services” as a result of his attempts to seduce a ten-year old child that he appears to have been obsessed with; (2) two cases involving child pornography that were ultimately dismissed; and (3) a Minnesota CHIPS case arising from those allegations involving these same children which was closed when the family moved to Wisconsin. M.B. completed a psychosexual/parenting assessment in connection with his Minnesota cases in 2019. (¶11). That report expressed concern about M.B.’s ability to parent his children and recommended programming, including sex offender treatment. (¶12). The court in this CHIPS case, after hearing about M.B.’s legal troubles in Minnesota, ordered that he follow through on the recommendations of the 2019 assessment, which M.B. had not previously done. (¶14).
Because the circuit court did not rely on the dismissed cases and otherwise properly considered the allegations in the Minnesota conviction relating to the ten-year old child, COA finds no erroneous exercise of discretion. (¶20). The circuit court explained its discretionary decision by examining the relevant facts, applying the proper legal standard, and using a rational decision making process which resulted in a reasonable outcome. (¶19).
COA also refuses to consider M.B.’s second argument that he should not have been included on the dispositional order as he did not file a reply brief and did not raise the issue in the circuit court. (¶21).