J.W.’s challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at both the grounds and dispositional phases of the proceeding that terminated his parental rights to J.W., Jr. The court of appeals rejects his arguments.
The TPR petition alleged continuing CHIPS under § 48.415(2) and failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6). J.W.’s challenges, and the court of appeals’ analysis, are necessarily very fact dependent. Suffice it to say, the court of appeals’ review of the record finds sufficient credible evidence supporting the conclusion that, despite evidence of the efforts J.W. did make regarding his child, he would not likely meet the conditions for return established by a CHIPS order regarding J.W., Jr. (¶¶20-24) and that J.W. failed to assume parental responsibility (¶¶25-26).
His challenge to the circuit court’s disposition decision essentially asks the court of appeals to weigh the evidence and § 48.426(3) factors differently than the circuit court. That is not appropriate under the standard of review for exercise of discretion, and the court of appeals finds nothing to fault in the circuit court’s decision. (¶¶27-30).