## Facts

- Greg H. L. was born in 1991 to Gail M. and Jerome E. M.
- Jerome was not involved in Greg’s life during Greg’s early years.
- When Greg was almost three years old, Jerome filed an action seeking to be adjudicated Greg’s father.
- A court adjudicated Jerome as Greg’s father in 1997.
- Despite pursuing the paternity adjudication, Jerome made no meaningful effort to build a relationship with Greg, provided no financial support, and had essentially no communication regarding Greg, other than a single conversation with a guardian ad litem in 1995.
- Beginning when Greg was about one year old, Gail’s husband, Roger M., acted as Greg’s day-to-day father figure.
- In 1999, Gail and Roger filed a petition to terminate Jerome’s parental rights so that Roger could adopt Greg.
- After a fact-finding hearing and a dispositional hearing, the circuit court found statutory grounds for termination based on abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility and concluded termination was in Greg’s best interests.
- Jerome appealed, challenging (among other things) jurisdiction/venue, the sufficiency of the evidence on grounds, the best-interests determination, and arguing that the prior paternity adjudication barred the TPR petition under res judicata.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction and proper venue to hear the termination-of-parental-rights petition.
2. Whether the 1997 paternity adjudication precluded the later termination proceeding under claim preclusion (res judicata) or issue preclusion.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the circuit court’s findings of abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 48.415.
4. Whether the circuit court properly exercised discretion in determining that termination was in Greg’s best interests at disposition.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the order terminating Jerome’s parental rights.
- The court upheld the circuit court’s exercise of jurisdiction and its venue determination for the TPR proceeding.
- The court rejected Jerome’s res judicata argument, concluding that the paternity adjudication did not bar a later TPR action because the proceedings serve different purposes and do not involve the same claim or actually litigated issues.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support findings of abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility.
- The court concluded the circuit court properly exercised discretion in determining that termination was in Greg’s best interests, including the stability Greg had with Gail and Roger and the lack of an established parent-child relationship with Jerome.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion applies only when there is (1) identity of parties (or privies), (2) identity of claims/cause of action, and (3) a final judgment on the merits; a paternity adjudication and a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding are not the same claim.
- Issue preclusion bars relitigation only of issues actually litigated and necessary to the prior judgment; a paternity adjudication determines legal parentage and does not decide statutory grounds for termination.
- Termination of parental rights in Wisconsin proceeds in two phases: a grounds phase requiring proof under Wis. Stat. § 48.415 and a dispositional phase requiring a best-interests determination under Wis. Stat. § 48.426.
- Appellate review generally upholds circuit-court factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviews the dispositional best-interests decision for a proper exercise of discretion.
- A parent’s long-term lack of contact, support, and involvement may support findings of abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility when the statutory elements are met.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the prior paternity judgment establishing Jerome as Greg’s legal father did not bar a later termination petition, affirmed the circuit court’s determinations on jurisdiction and venue, upheld findings that Jerome abandoned Greg and failed to assume parental responsibility, and concluded the circuit court properly determined that termination served Greg’s best interests.


In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Greg H.L v. Jerome E.M., 243 Wis. 2d 117, 627 N.W.2d 549 (2001)