≡ Menu

COA once again rejects arguments that “direct evidence” from adoptive resources is required at a TPR dispositional hearing

Brown County D.H.S. v. A.K., 2023AP730, 9/6/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).

A.K. concedes that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion at this dispositional hearing, but argues that the order must still be reversed as there was no direct evidence from the proposed adoptive resource. COA rejects that argument and affirms.

This appeal is quite similar to another recent TPR appeal, S.M., where the parent likewise conceded that the circuit court had properly exercised its discretion but asked for reversal because there was no direct evidence submitted from the proposed adoptive resource. S.M. failed to provide any authority to support that argument and COA speculated this was probably because no such authority exists. The appellant makes the identical error here by failing to cite any legal authority in support of her novel argument, which seemingly contradicts other TPR law. (¶15). Moreover, a case manager did testify about the adoptive resource. (¶16). COA likewise  swats away an undeveloped claim as to why that testimony was inadmissible hearsay and why this procedure somehow violated the parent’s due process rights. (¶17, ¶20). COA thus rejects all of A.K.’s arguments and affirms. (Id.).

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment