The court of appeals rejects D.B.’s argument that the circuit court terminated her parental rights to T.J. without properly considering the facts that there was no adoptive resource available for T.J. at the time of termination, that a strong bond existed between T.J. and D.B. and T.J.’s older brother, and that T.J. had consistently expressed wishes to be returned to D.B.’s care.
¶7 …. The circuit court is not required to afford greater weight to any particular factor in § 48.426(3), and this court will defer to the circuit court as to the weight it gives various factors and affirm so long as the court properly examined each factor. See Darryl T.-H. [v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42], 234 Wis. 2d 606, ¶¶29, 35[, 610 N.W.2d 475]; …. Here, the record plainly shows that the circuit court took into consideration each of the § 48.426(3) factors.
¶13 D.B. does not challenge the court’s findings. …[H]er argument is really about the fact that the court placed more weight on the importance to T.J. of stability and permanence in his family placement as opposed to his bond with D.B. and his brother and the lack of an imminent adoption on the horizon. Whether or not any other court would have given the same weight to the various factors or reached the same conclusion, the circuit court in this case was fully within its discretion to do so.