R.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, M.M.
R.M. first argues there was insufficient evidence for jury’s unfitness findings as to both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility. The court of appeals recites evidence that R.M. was unsuccessful in providing a safe home for M.M., missed multiple scheduled visits with him, failed to adhere to AODA treatment requirements, and didn’t keep in touch with the various people and entities she’d been ordered to keep in touch with. (¶¶18-27).
R.M. also claims that the circuit court improperly weighed the statutory factors in deciding that termination was in the child’s best interest; the claim fared about as well as it usually does. (¶¶24-25).