MADISON, Wis. (CN) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the statutory process for terminating a parent's rights to their child, finding that it does not violate parents' due process rights.

In 2022, the state filed to terminate a mother's rights to her son due to gaps in his care, setting into motion a two-part process for determining the best interests of a child, in which the judge has discretion to make the final decision guided by a set of factors laid out by the Wisconsin Legislature.

The mother, referred to in court documents as H.C., claimed on appeal that the dispositional phase of that process - where all parties present evidence as to what they believe is the best placement for the child - violated her due process rights because the state is not required to meet any burden of proof.

The high court heard oral arguments on the case in December and were not swayed by the mother's argument that the 14th Amendment requires the state to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination after a finding of unfitness.

On Tuesday, the court ruled that the state has no burden of proof in parental termination cases like H.C.'s and imposing one would impede the ultimate goal of the proceedings.

"H.C.'s argument under the due process clause would effectively force a circuit court to disregard the child's best interests if the state does not meet a certain standard of proof," Justice Rebecca Bradley said in the majority opinion. "Due process is not measured by such rigid and inflexible rules."

The Legislature's factors act as a checklist, instructing a judge to consider such things as the age and health of the child, the relationship, or lack thereof, between the parent and the child, the parent's wellness and anything else that could affect the proper care of the child.

Bradley suggested in Tuesday's opinion that H.C. misunderstands the purpose of the two-part termination process. By asserting that the state must meet some burden of proof at the dispositional phase, she erases the grounds phase where the factfinding happens. In some ways, the dispositional phase is akin to sentencing than trial.

The grounds phase is a factfinding hearing and the first step in a termination proceeding. There, the parent informs the court whether termination will be contested, and the state presents the grounds for termination. If the state cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit, the proceedings are dismissed, according to Bradley.

In the end, the discretion of the judge allows the court to weigh all relevant evidence to determine the child's best interests without regard for who produced what evidence, according to Bradley.

H.C. made the case in oral arguments that judicial discretion in these sensitive cases in inappropriate and fails to recognize the weight of the decision, an assertion that the justices were almost insulted by.

"Are you suggesting that exercising discretion ipso facto automatically means there is no burden of proof? Do you think that?" Chief Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said at that December hearing.

According to the state's petition, H.C. and her son had been living in a group home before he was brought to a foster family. Despite multiple interventions, H.C. was never able to address her issues with mental health, drugs and alcohol and failed to meet her son's significant medical needs.

The presiding judge in the underlying termination proceeding remarked that even if there were a burden of proof, "the state has certainly met those burdens here, and gone beyond them, certainly. It's really an overwhelming situation," according to Justice Rebecca Bradley.

The appeals court affirmed this decision in March of last year before it was brought to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Although the court was unanimous in finding that H.C.'s due process rights were not violated, Chief Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Rebecca Dallet authored a concurring opinion asserting that the state does have the general civil burden of preponderance of evidence at the dispositional phase.

Though the concurring justices do not claim that due process or public policy demands application of a clear and convincing burden, the state must demonstrate the best interests of the child by a preponderance of evidence.

"A preponderance burden allows the unfit parent and child to share the risk of error roughly in equal fashion, which acknowledges that the parent retains an interest at disposition but also supports the stated purpose of chapter 48 - the child's best interests," Ann Walsh Bradley said.

The majority opined that the intended purpose of the dispositional phase is more akin to a sentencing hearing in that the parent was already found unfit, much like at sentencing the defendant was already found guilty, so the evidence presented will only sway how the child will be placed.

In any case, H.C.'s parental rights termination is upheld and the statutory scheme governing termination proceedings will be left unchanged.

Source: Courthouse News Service