Did the Trial Court erred in Terminating the Biological Mother’s Parental Rights - BY: Diane M.

LA265 Family Law

Link for opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

In the case of State v. Elizabeth M (In re John G.), 2012 WI App 73; 342 Wis. 2d 253; 816 N.W. 2d 352; 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 355, the Wisconsin Appeals Court had to decide if the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of Elizabeth M. on the facts that it was in the best interest of the child.

In the two and one-half years since the birth of John G. his biological mother Elizabeth M. had only seen him twice, had made no attempt to get custody and made no attempt to transfer her probation from Iowa to Wisconsin.

On April 30, 2009, John G. was born to Elizabeth M. and unknown father in a Milwaukee hospital. A few days after his birth, John G. was taken from Elizabeth and placed in the foster care of Melissa F. There was an open warrant for the arrest of Elizabeth in Iowa. Elizabeth was being extradited back to Iowa on theft charges and where she has since resided.

A BMCW case worker did reach out to an aunt and sister of Elizabeth in Iowa. The case worker spoke with and conducted an interview with the aunt. The case worker did start legal proceedings to place John G. in the care of the aunt, but the proceedings were stopped due to the lack of cooperation by the aunt. The BMCW then tried to place John G. with Elizabeth’s sister which also failed due to the sister’s criminal and child protective service history, her housing and financial situation.

Elizabeth waived her rights to a trial and agreeing that legal grounds did exist for the termination of her parental rights of John, the court did find legal grounds that existed, Elizabeth failed to assume her parental responsibilities and she was also found to be unfit. The court also ruled it was in the best interest of the child that his biological mother’s parental rights should be terminated. Elizabeth appealed the trial court decision.

In the Appeals Court, Elizabeth argued that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion when deciding it was in the best interest of the child (John G) to terminate her parental rights, and the BMCW failed to transfer John to Iowa, which prevented her from having custody of him.

Even though Elizabeth had only seen her son twice since his birth, she felt it was time for her to resume her parental rights of him. By placing John in her custody, Elizabeth stated that John “would not be harmed in any way if he were reunited with her.”

The factors that were used and applied in the trial court determining if it was in the best interest of the child to terminate his biological mother’s parental rights, were looked at again by the Appeals Court.

Some of the factors that the court applied to make their decision: For the two and one-half years of his life John G. has only lived with his foster mother. The foster mother testified in the trial court that she wanted to adopt John G. and she had already completed the adoption process. John G. has been taken well cared for, is healthy and is well-adjusted in the hands of his foster mother. Elizabeth had only visited John G. twice and each time he was skittish around her. John G. has never met his other siblings. The only mother John G. has ever known is his foster mother and he calls her “mommy”.

The court concluded that John G. was living in a permanent, stable and loving environment with his foster mother, and it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the biological mother’s parental rights. The best placement of the child is with the foster mother. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court decision.