Oneida County v. J.B., 2025AP213, 7/1/25, District III (one judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.B. (“Joseph”) appeals the disposition terminating his parental rights to his son, “Isaac,” arguing that the circuit court failed to explicitly consider whether Isaac had substantial relationships with Joseph and members of his family. COA rejects Joseph’s arguments and affirms.
Isaac was five years old at the time of the jury trial on grounds and dispositional hearing. He was removed from Joseph’s care at the age of two and lived with a foster family that had expressed an interest in adopting him. Joseph had not visited Isaac since his removal. (¶3). The county had looked into placing Isaac with Joseph’s parents, but found that their home would be unsuitable due to their health issues. (¶4).
A social worker for the county and an employee of Lutheran Social Services testified at the dispositional hearing. (¶¶3-6). The circuit court stated it reviewed the guardian ad litem’s report and agreed with the GAL’s analysis of each of the statutory factors. (¶7). The court also stated that it had considered all of the factors, listed the factors, and then made factual findings. The court then entered an order terminating Joseph’s parental rights. (¶8).
On appeal, Joseph argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion during the dispositional phase by failing to consider whether Isaac had substantial relationships with Joseph or with the paternal family members who wished to help raise Isaac, and instead considered if Isaac would be harmed if he were removed from his foster family. Joseph further argues that the court erred by failing to consider whether a relationship between Isaac and his paternal grandparents “was possible and had been frustrated” by the county’s “inaction.” (¶9).
COA concludes that the record contradicts Joseph’s arguments because the circuit court adopted and incorporated the GAL’s report, which “discussed and analyzed each of the required factors in Wis. Stat. § 48.426” into its findings of fact. The court also specifically mentioned the substantial relationship factor in its oral ruling. (¶13). COA further reasons that the circuit court need not explicitly consider the potential harm by severing the relationship between Isaac and Joseph or his other paternal family members. (¶14). There are no “magic words” required. State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, ¶78, 412 Wis. 2d 364, 8 N.W.3d 22.
Finally, COA considers Joseph’s argument related a sustained objection (on relevance grounds) to a question on the county’s efforts to set up visitation between Isaac and his paternal grandparents. (¶15). At the time of the objection, the circuit court noted that the testimony was already in the record from the trial phase, and told counsel to move on. (¶15). COA concludes that unlike Joseph’s argument, the circuit court did not “categorically decline to consider all evidence” of Isaac’s relationship with his grandparents, but it acknowledged that evidence. (¶16). Accordingly, COA concludes the court properly considered Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3), and it did not erroneously exercise its discretion. (¶17).
