2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 767 - Actions affecting the family. › 767.41 - Custody and physical placement.

767.41
Custody and physical placement.
(1)
General provisions.
(a)
Subject to ch. 822, the question of a child's custody may be determined as an incident of any action affecting the family or in an independent action for custody. The effect of any determination of a child's custody is not binding personally against any parent or guardian unless the parent or guardian has been made personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the action as provided under ch. 801 or has been notified under s. 822.08, as provided in s. 822.06. Nothing in this chapter may be construed to foreclose a person other than a parent who has physical custody of a child from proceeding under ch. 822.
(b)
In rendering a judgment of annulment, divorce, legal separation, or paternity, or in rendering a judgment in an action under s. 767.001 (1) (e), 767.501, 767.804 (2), or 767.805 (3), the court shall make such provisions as it deems just and reasonable concerning the legal custody and physical placement of any minor child of the parties, as provided in this section.
(1m)
Parenting plan. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an action for annulment, divorce, or legal separation, an action to determine paternity, or an action under s. 767.001 (1) (e), 767.501, 767.804 (2), or 767.805 (3), in which legal custody or physical placement is contested, a party seeking sole or joint legal custody or periods of physical placement shall file a proposed parenting plan with the court if the court waives the requirement to attend mediation under s. 767.405 (8) (b) or if the parties have attended mediation and the mediator notifies the court under s. 767.405 (12) (b) that the parties have not reached an agreement. Unless the court orders otherwise, the proposed parenting plan shall be filed within 60 days after the court waives the mediation requirement or the mediator notifies the court that no agreement has been reached. Except for cause shown, a party required to file a proposed parenting plan under this subsection who does not timely file a proposed parenting plan waives the right to object to the other party's parenting plan. A proposed parenting plan shall provide information about the following questions:
(a)
What legal custody or physical placement the parent is seeking.
(b)
Where the parent lives currently and where the parent intends to live during the next 2 years. If there is evidence that the other parent engaged in interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), with respect to the parent providing the parenting plan, the parent providing the parenting plan is not required to disclose the specific address but only a general description of where he or she currently lives and intends to live during the next 2 years.
(c)
Where the parent works and the hours of employment. If there is evidence that the other parent engaged in interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), with respect to the parent providing the parenting plan, the parent providing the parenting plan is not required to disclose the specific address but only a general description of where he or she works.
(cm)
With specific detail, what proposed variable costs are expected to be incurred by or on behalf of the child.
(d)
Who will provide any necessary child care when the parent cannot and who will pay for the child care.
(e)
Where the child will go to school.
(f)
What doctor or health care facility will provide medical care for the child.
(h)
What the child's religious commitment will be, if any.
(i)
Who will make decisions about the child's education, medical care, choice of child care providers and extracurricular activities.
(j)
How the holidays will be divided.
(k)
What the child's summer schedule will be.
(L)
Whether and how the child will be able to contact the other parent when the child has physical placement with the parent providing the parenting plan, and what electronic communication, if any, the parent is seeking.
(Lm)
Whether equipment for providing electronic communication is reasonably available to both parents.
(m)
How the parent proposes to resolve disagreements related to matters over which the court orders joint decision making.
(o)
If there is evidence that either party engaged in interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), with respect to the other party, how the child will be transferred between the parties for the exercise of physical placement to ensure the safety of the child and the parties.
(2)
Custody to party; joint or sole.
(a)
Subject to pars. (am) to (e), based on the best interest of the child and after considering the factors under sub. (5) (am), subject to sub. (5) (bm), the court may give joint legal custody or sole legal custody of a minor child.
(am)
Except as provided in par. (d), the court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child.
(b)
Except as provided in par. (d) and subject to par. (e), the court may give sole legal custody only if it finds that doing so is in the child's best interest and that either of the following applies:
1.
Both parties agree to sole legal custody with the same party.
2.
The parties do not agree to sole legal custody with the same party, but at least one party requests sole legal custody and the court specifically finds any of the following:
a.
One party is not capable of performing parental duties and responsibilities or does not wish to have an active role in raising the child.
b.
One or more conditions exist at that time that would substantially interfere with the exercise of joint legal custody.
c.
The parties will not be able to cooperate in the future decision making required under an award of joint legal custody. In making this finding the court shall consider, along with any other pertinent items, any reasons offered by a party objecting to joint legal custody. Evidence that either party engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (a), of the child, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (b), or evidence of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), creates a rebuttable presumption that the parties will not be able to cooperate in the future decision making required.
(c)
Except as provided in par. (d), the court may not give sole legal custody to a parent who refuses to cooperate with the other parent if the court finds that the refusal to cooperate is unreasonable.
(d)
1.
Except as provided in subd. 4., if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a party has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), pars. (am), (b), and (c) do not apply and there is a rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and contrary to the best interest of the child to award joint or sole legal custody to that party. The presumption under this subdivision may be rebutted only by a preponderance of evidence of all of the following:
a.
The party who committed the battery or abuse has successfully completed treatment for batterers provided through a certified treatment program or by a certified treatment provider and is not abusing alcohol or any other drug.
b.
It is in the best interest of the child for the party who committed the battery or abuse to be awarded joint or sole legal custody based on a consideration of the factors under sub. (5) (am).
2.
If the court finds under subd. 1. that both parties engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), the party who engaged in the battery or abuse for purposes of the presumption under subd. 1. is the party that the court determines was the primary physical aggressor. Except as provided in subd. 3., in determining which party was the primary physical aggressor, the court shall consider all of the following:
a.
Prior acts of domestic violence between the parties.
b.
The relative severity of the injuries, if any, inflicted upon a party by the other party in any of the prior acts of domestic violence under subd. 2. a.
c.
The likelihood of future injury to either of the parties resulting from acts of domestic violence.
d.
Whether either of the parties acted in self-defense in any of the prior acts of domestic violence under subd. 2. a.
e.
Whether there is or has been a pattern of coercive and abusive behavior between the parties.
f.
Any other factor that the court considers relevant to the determination under this subdivision.
3.
If the court must determine under subd. 2. which party was the primary physical aggressor and one, but not both, of the parties has been convicted of a crime that was an act of domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), with respect to the other party, the court shall find the party who was convicted of the crime to be the primary physical aggressor.
4.
The presumption under subd. 1. does not apply if the court finds that both parties engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery or domestic abuse but the court determines that neither party was the primary physical aggressor.
(e)
1.
In this paragraph, “ service member" has the meaning given in s. 324.02 (16).
2.
Except as provided under ch. 324, if a party is a service member, the court may not consider as a factor in determining the legal custody of a child whether the service member has been or may be called to active duty in the U.S. armed forces and consequently is, or in the future will be or may be, absent from the service member's home.
(3)
Custody to agency or relative.
(a)
If the interest of any child demands it, and if the court finds that neither parent is able to care for the child adequately or that neither parent is fit and proper to have the care and custody of the child, the court may declare the child to be in need of protection or services and transfer legal custody of the child to a relative of the child, as defined in s. 48.02 (15), to a county department, as defined under s. 48.02 (2g), to a licensed child welfare agency, or, in a county having a population of 750,000 or more, the department of children and families. If the court transfers legal custody of a child under this subsection, in its order the court shall notify the parents of any applicable grounds for termination of parental rights under s. 48.415. If the court transfers legal custody under this section to an agency, the court shall also refer the matter to the court intake worker, as defined in s. 48.02 (3), who shall conduct an inquiry under s. 48.24 to determine whether a petition should be filed under s. 48.13.
(am)
If the court transfers legal custody of a child under this subsection, the order transferring custody shall include a finding that placement of the child in his or her home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and a finding that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the child from the home, while assuring that the health and safety of the child are the paramount concerns, unless any of the circumstances specified in s. 48.355 (2d) (b) 1. to 5. applies. If the legal custodian appointed under par. (a) is a county department, the court shall order the child into the placement and care responsibility of the county department as required under 42 USC 672 (a) (2) and shall assign the county department primary responsibility for providing services to the child. The court shall make the findings specified in this paragraph on a case-by-case basis based on circumstances specific to the child and shall document or reference the specific information on which those findings are based in the court order. A court order that merely references this paragraph without documenting or referencing that specific information in the court order or an amended court order that retroactively corrects an earlier court order that does not comply with this paragraph is not sufficient to comply with this paragraph.
(b)
If the legal custodian appointed under par. (a) is an agency, the agency shall report to the court on the status of the child at least once each year until the child reaches 18 years of age, is returned to the custody of a parent or is placed under the guardianship of an agency. The agency shall file an annual report no less than 30 days before the anniversary of the date of the order. An agency may file an additional report at any time if it determines that more frequent reporting is appropriate. A report shall summarize the child's permanency plan and the recommendations of the review panel under s. 48.38 (5), if any.
(c)
The court shall hold a hearing to review the permanency plan within 30 days after receiving a report under par. (b). At least 10 days before the date of the hearing, the court shall provide notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing to the agency that prepared the report; the child; the child's parents, guardian, and legal custodian; and the child's foster parent, the operator of the facility in which the child is living, or the relative with whom the child is living.
(d)
Following the hearing, the court shall make all of the determinations specified under s. 48.38 (5) (c) and, if it determines that an alternative placement is in the child's best interest, may amend the order to transfer legal custody of the child to another relative, other than a parent, or to another agency specified under par. (a).
(e)
The charges for care furnished to a child whose custody is transferred under this subsection shall be pursuant to the procedure under s. 48.36 (1) or 938.36 (1) except as provided in s. 767.57 (3).
(4)
Allocation of physical placement.
(a)
1.
Except as provided under par. (b), if the court orders sole or joint legal custody under sub. (2), the court shall allocate periods of physical placement between the parties in accordance with this subsection.
2.
In determining the allocation of periods of physical placement, the court shall consider each case on the basis of the factors in sub. (5) (am), subject to sub. (5) (bm). The court shall set a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and accommodations for different households.
(b)
A child is entitled to periods of physical placement with both parents unless, after a hearing, the court finds that physical placement with a parent would endanger the child's physical, mental or emotional health.
(c)
No court may deny periods of physical placement for failure to meet, or grant periods of physical placement for meeting, any financial obligation to the child or, if the parties were married, to the former spouse.
(cm)
If a court denies periods of physical placement under this section, the court shall give the parent that was denied periods of physical placement the warning provided under s. 48.356.
(e)
If the court grants periods of physical placement to more than one parent, the court may grant to either or both parents a reasonable amount of electronic communication at reasonable hours during the other parent's periods of physical placement with the child. Electronic communication with the child may be used only to supplement a parent's periods of physical placement with the child. Electronic communication may not be used as a replacement or as a substitute for a parent's periods of physical placement with the child. Granting a parent electronic communication with the child during the other parent's periods of physical placement shall be based on whether it is in the child's best interest and whether equipment for providing electronic communication is reasonably available to both parents. If the court grants electronic communication to a parent whose physical placement with the child is supervised, the court shall also require that the parent's electronic communication with the child be supervised.
(5)
Factors in custody and physical placement determinations.
(am)
Subject to pars. (bm) and (c), in determining legal custody and periods of physical placement, the court shall consider all facts relevant to the best interest of the child. The court may not prefer one parent or potential custodian over the other on the basis of the sex or race of the parent or potential custodian. Subject to pars. (bm) and (c), the court shall consider all of the following factors, which are not necessarily listed in order of importance, in making its determination:
1.
The wishes of the child's parent or parents, as shown by any stipulation between the parties, any proposed parenting plan or any legal custody or physical placement proposal submitted to the court at trial.
2.
The wishes of the child, which may be communicated by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem or other appropriate professional.
3.
The cooperation and communication between the parties and whether either party unreasonably refuses to cooperate or communicate with the other party.
4. Whether each party can support the other party's relationship with the child, including encouraging and facilitating frequent and continuing contact with the child, or whether one party is likely to unreasonably interfere with the child's continuing relationship with the other party.
5. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
6. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parent or parents and the amount and quality of time that each parent has spent with the child in the past, any necessary changes to the parents' custodial roles, and any reasonable lifestyle changes that a parent proposes to make to maximize placement with the child.
7. Whether any of the following has or had a significant problem with alcohol or drug abuse:
a. A party.
b. A person with whom a parent of the child has a dating relationship, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (ag).
c. A person who resides, has resided, or will reside regularly or intermittently in a proposed custodial household.
8. The child's adjustment to the home, school, religion, and community.
9. The age of the child and the child's developmental and educational needs at different ages.
10. Whether the mental or physical health of a party, minor child, or other person living in a proposed custodial household negatively affects the child's intellectual, physical, or emotional well-being.
11. Whether any of the following has a criminal record or whether there is evidence that any of the following has engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (a), of the child or any other child or neglected the child or any other child:
a. A party.
b. A person with whom a parent of the child has a dating relationship, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (ag).
c. A person who resides, has resided, or will reside regularly or intermittently in a proposed custodial household.
12. Whether there is evidence of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am).
13. The reports of appropriate professionals if admitted into evidence.
14. Any other factor that the court determines to be relevant.
(bm)
If the court finds under sub. (2) (d) that a parent has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), the safety and well-being of the child and the safety of the parent who was the victim of the battery or abuse shall be the paramount concerns in determining legal custody and periods of physical placement.
(c)
Except as provided under ch. 324, if a parent is a service member, as defined in sub. (2) (e) 1., the court may not consider as a factor in determining the legal custody of a child whether the service member has been or may be called to active duty in the U.S. armed forces and consequently is, or in the future will be or may be, absent from the service member's home.
(5m)
Approval of stipulation for modifications contingent on future event. In making an order of legal custody under sub. (2) or (3) or physical placement under sub. (4), the court may approve a stipulation for modifications to legal custody or physical placement upon the occurrence of a specified future event, as defined in s. 767.34 (3) (a), that is reasonably certain to occur within 2 years of the date of the stipulation and incorporate the terms of the stipulation into the order. The court may not approve a stipulation under this subsection that is based on an anticipated behavior modification of a party.
(6)
Final order.
(a)
If legal custody or physical placement is contested, the court shall state in writing why its findings relating to legal custody or physical placement are in the best interest of the child. If the court grants physical placement to one parent for less than 25 percent of the time, as determined under s. 49.22 (9), the court shall enter specific findings of fact as to the reasons that a greater allocation of physical placement with that parent is not in the best interests of the child.
(am)
In making an order of joint legal custody, upon the request of one parent the court shall specify major decisions in addition to those specified under s. 767.001 (2m).
(b)
Notwithstanding s. 767.001 (1s), in making an order of joint legal custody, the court may give one party sole power to make specified decisions, while both parties retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.
(c)
In making an order of joint legal custody and periods of physical placement, the court may specify one parent as the primary caretaker of the child and one home as the primary home of the child, for the purpose of determining eligibility for aid under s. 49.19 or benefits under ss. 49.141 to 49.161 or for any other purpose the court considers appropriate.
(d)
No party awarded joint legal custody may take any action inconsistent with any applicable physical placement order, unless the court expressly authorizes that action.
(e)
In an order of physical placement, the court shall specify the right of each party to the physical control of the child in sufficient detail to enable a party deprived of that control to implement any law providing relief for interference with custody or parental rights.
(f)
If the court finds under sub. (2) (d) that a party has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), the court shall state in writing whether the presumption against awarding joint or sole legal custody to that party is rebutted and, if so, what evidence rebutted the presumption, and why its findings relating to legal custody and physical placement are in the best interest of the child.
(g)
If the court finds under sub. (2) (d) that a party has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), and the court awards periods of physical placement to both parties, the court shall provide for the safety and well-being of the child and for the safety of the party who was the victim of the battery or abuse. For that purpose the court, giving consideration to the availability of services or programs and to the ability of the party who committed the battery or abuse to pay for those services or programs, shall impose one or more of the following, as appropriate:
1.
Requiring the exchange of the child to occur in a protected setting or in the presence of an appropriate 3rd party who agrees by affidavit or other supporting evidence to assume the responsibility assigned by the court and to be accountable to the court for his or her actions with respect to the responsibility.
2.
Requiring the child's periods of physical placement with the party who committed the battery or abuse to be supervised by an appropriate 3rd party who agrees by affidavit or other supporting evidence to assume the responsibility assigned by the court and to be accountable to the court for his or her actions with respect to the responsibility.
3.
Requiring the party who committed the battery or abuse to pay the costs of supervised physical placement.
4.
Requiring the party who committed the battery or abuse to attend and complete, to the satisfaction of the court, treatment for batterers provided through a certified treatment program or by a certified treatment provider as a condition of exercising his or her periods of physical placement.
5.
If the party who committed the battery or abuse has a significant problem with alcohol or drug abuse, prohibiting that party from being under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance when the parties exchange the child for periods of physical placement and from possessing or consuming alcohol or any controlled substance during his or her periods of physical placement.
6.
Prohibiting the party who committed the battery or abuse from having overnight physical placement with the child.
7.
Requiring the party who committed the battery or abuse to post a bond for the return and safety of the child.
8.
Imposing any condition not specified in subds. 1. to 7. that the court determines is necessary for the safety and well-being of the child or the safety of the party who was the victim of the battery or abuse.
(h)
In making an order of legal custody and periods of physical placement, the court shall in writing inform the parents, and any other person granted legal custody of the child, of all of the following:
1.
That each parent must notify the other parent, the child support agency, and the clerk of court of the address at which they may be served within 10 business days of moving to that address. The address may be a street or post office address.
2.
That the address provided to the court is the address on which the other parties may rely for service of any motion relating to modification of legal custody or physical placement or to relocating the child's residence.
3.
That a parent granted periods of physical placement with the child must obtain a court order before relocating with the child 100 miles or more from the other parent if the other parent also has court-ordered periods of physical placement with the child.
(7)
Access to records.
(a)
Except under par. (b) or unless otherwise ordered by the court, access to a child's medical, dental and school records is available to a parent regardless of whether the parent has legal custody of the child.
(b)
A parent who has been denied periods of physical placement with a child under this section is subject to s. 118.125 (2) (m) with respect to that child's school records, s. 51.30 (5) (bm) with respect to the child's court or treatment records, s. 55.23 with respect to the child's records relating to protective services, and s. 146.835 with respect to the child's patient health care records.
(7m)
Medical and medical history information.
(a)
In making an order of legal custody, the court shall order a parent who is not granted legal custody of a child to provide to the court medical and medical history information that is known to the parent. The court shall send the information to the physician or other health care provider with primary responsibility for the treatment and care of the child, as designated by the parent who is granted legal custody of the child, and advise the physician or other health care provider of the identity of the child to whom the information relates. The information provided shall include all of the following:
1.
The known medical history of the parent providing the information, including specific information about stillbirths or congenital anomalies in the parent's family, and the medical histories, if known, of the parents and siblings of the parent and any sibling of the child who is a child of the parent, except that medical history information need not be provided for a sibling of the child if the parent or other person who is granted legal custody of the child also has legal custody, including joint legal custody, of that sibling.
2.
A report of any medical examination that the parent providing the information had within one year before the date of the order.
(am)
The physician or other health care provider designated under par. (a) shall keep the information separate from other records kept by the physician or other health care provider. The information shall be assigned an identification number and maintained under the name of the parent who provided the information to the court. The patient health care records of the child that are kept by the physician or other health care provider shall include a reference to that name and identification number. If the child's patient health care records are transferred to another physician or other health care provider or another health care facility, the records containing the information provided under par. (a) shall be transferred along with the child's patient health care records. Notwithstanding s. 146.819, the information provided under par. (a) need not be maintained by a physician or other health care provider after the child reaches age 18.
(b)
Notwithstanding ss. 146.81 to 146.835, the information shall be kept confidential, except only as follows:
1.
The physician or other health care provider with custody of the information, or any other record custodian at the request of the physician or other health care provider, shall have access to the information if, in the professional judgment of the physician or other health care provider, the information may be relevant to the child's medical condition.
2.
The physician or other health care provider may release only that portion of the information, and only to a person, that the physician or other health care provider determines is relevant to the child's medical condition.
(8)
Notice in judgment. A judgment which determines the legal custody or physical placement rights of any person to a minor child shall include notification of the contents of s. 948.31.
History:  1971 c. 149, 157, 211; 1975 c. 39, 122, 200, 283; 1977 c. 105, 418; 1979 c. 32 ss. 50, 92 (4); 1979 c. 196; Stats. 1979 s. 767.24; 1981 c. 391; 1985 a. 70, 176; 1987 a. 332 s. 64; 1987 a. 355, 364, 383, 403; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1989 a. 359; 1991 a. 32; 1993 a. 213, 446, 481; 1995 a. 77, 100, 275, 289, 343, 375; 1997 a. 35, 191; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 109; 2003 a. 130; 2005 a. 101, 174, 264; 2005 a. 443 ss. 29, 94 to 98; Stats. 2005 s. 767.41; 2005 a. 471 ss. 1 to 5; 2007 a. 20; 2007 a. 96 ss. 141, 142; 2007 a. 97, 187; 2009 a. 28, 79; 2013 a. 334; 2015 a. 172; 2017 a. 203; 2019 a. 95; 2021 a. 20, 36, 37, 161.
NOTE:  1987 Wis. Act 355 contains a “legislative declaration" in section 1 and explanatory notes and 2005 Wis. Act 443 contains explanatory notes.
It was reversible error for the court to make a custody award when the court should have recognized the rule of comity and declined to exercise its jurisdiction. Sheridan v. Sheridan, 65 Wis. 2d 504, 223 N.W.2d 557 (1974).
As a general matter, the child's best interests will be served by living with a parent. If circumstances compel a contrary conclusion, the interests of the child, not a supposed right of a parent to custody, controls. In a dispute between a father and a deceased mother's parents, the court erred in concluding that it must award custody to a natural parent unless the parent was unfit or unable to care for the children. LaChapell v. Mawhinney, 66 Wis. 2d 679, 225 N.W.2d 501 (1975).
The record of a temporary hearing may be relevant at a divorce hearing but is not controlling, and neither party has the burden of proving a change in circumstances to warrant a change from the temporary order. Kuesel v. Kuesel, 74 Wis. 2d 636, 247 N.W.2d 72 (1976).
The trial court may not order a custodial parent to live in a designated part of the state or else lose custody. Groh v. Groh, 110 Wis. 2d 117, 327 N.W.2d 655 (1983).
In a custody dispute between a parent and a third party, unless the court finds that the parent is unfit or unable to care for the child, or that there are compelling reasons for denying custody to the parent, the court must grant custody to the parent. Barstad v. Frazier, 118 Wis. 2d 549, 348 N.W.2d 479 (1984).
A contract between a parent and a non-parent to transfer permanent custody is unenforceable. Sporleder v. Hermes, 162 Wis. 2d 1002, 471 N.W.2d 202 (1991). But see Holtzman v. Knott, 193 Wis. 2d 649, 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995).
Revision of the statute to allow joint custody in cases in which both parties did not agree was not a “substantial change in circumstances" justifying a change to joint custody. Licary v. Licary, 168 Wis. 2d 686, 484 N.W.2d 371 (Ct. App. 1992).
Section 767.001 (2m) confers the right to choose a child's religion on the custodial parent. Reasonable restrictions on visitation to prevent subversion of this right do not violate the constitution. Lange v. Lange, 175 Wis. 2d 373, 502 N.W.2d 143 (Ct. App. 1993).
A custodial parent's right to make major decisions for the children does not give that parent the right to decide whether the actions of the noncustodial parent are consistent with those decisions. Wood v. DeHahn, 214 Wis. 2d 221, 571 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3642.
Neither sub. (4) (b) nor s. 767.325 (4) [now s. 767.451 (4)] permits a prospective order prohibiting a parent from requesting a change of physical placement in the future. Jocius v. Jocius, 218 Wis. 2d 103, 580 N.W.2d 708 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2746.
Section 813.122 implicitly envisions a change of placement and custody if the trial court issues a child abuse injunction under that section against a parent who has custody or placement of a child under a divorce order or judgment. Scott M.H. v. Kathleen M.H., 218 Wis. 2d 605, 581 N.W.2d 564 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0814.
Sub. (5) (b) [now sub. (5) (am) 2.], while requiring consideration of the child's wishes, leaves to the court's discretion whether to allow the child to testify. That the child is a competent witness under s. 906.01 does not affect the court's discretion. Hughes v. Hughes, 223 Wis. 2d 111, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3539.
Constitutional protections of a parent's right to the parent's child do not prevent the application of the best interests of the child standard as the central focus of determining where the child shall live. “Best interests" and “safety" are not synonymous. Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 599 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0433.
Sub. (4) requires allocation of placement between the parents. Before a court may deny a parent all placement or contact with a child, it must find that the contact would endanger the child's physical, mental, or emotional health. A parent who seeks to deny all contact by the other parent has the burden of proving the danger to the child. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 2000 WI App 93, 234 Wis. 2d 449, 610 N.W.2d 222, 99-2201.
There is no presumption of equal placement. While sub. (4) (a) 2. requires the court to provide for placement that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent, that is not tantamount to a presumption of equal placement. Keller v. Keller, 2002 WI App 161, 256 Wis. 2d 401, 647 N.W.2d 426, 01-2970.
While natural parents have a natural right to care and custody of their children, they do not have a fundamental right to equal placement periods after divorce. Arnold v. Arnold, 2004 WI App 62, 270 Wis. 2d 705, 679 N.W.2d 296, 03-1547.
A trial court may consider whether a parent's particular lifestyle choices have an impact on the best interests of a specific child. Findings regarding instability in living conditions must be based upon evidence specific to the individual case, not generalizations. A court's finding that a parent's living situation was unstable based primarily upon the trial court's negative view of the parent's unmarried status was improper. Helling v. Lambert, 2004 WI App 93, 272 Wis. 2d 796, 681 N.W.2d 552, 03-1097.
The sub. (2) (am) presumption that joint legal custody is in the child's best interest applies only in initial legal custody determinations, not in modification determinations. The presumption that the current custody and physical placement arrangement is in the child's best interest under s. 767.325 (1) (b) [now s. 767.451 (1) (b)] continues to apply in modification cases. Abbas v. Palmersheim, 2004 WI App 126, 275 Wis. 2d 311, 685 N.W.2d 546, 02-3390.
An agreement approved by the court and incorporated into the judgment that gave impasse-breaking authority to the guardian ad litem and family court counselor on the issue of which school a child was to attend was consistent with the public policy favoring settlement in divorce cases. The particular decision was not reviewable by the court, but the other parent could move to modify the grant of power under s. 767.325 [now s. 767.451]. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2004 WI App 170, 276 Wis. 2d 403, 687 N.W.2d 748, 03-1699.
The court acted properly when it ordered child support under the standard percentage guideline, without a reduction under the shared-time payer provision, for a parent with care responsibility for 36 percent of overnight placements. Placement until 7:00 p.m. including an evening meal, is not equivalent to providing overnight placement for purposes of determining the amount of placement with a parent. Rumpff v. Rumpff, 2004 WI App 197, 276 Wis. 2d 606, 688 N.W.2d 699, 03-2646.
Under sub. (1m) each parent is entitled to a copy of the other's parenting plan. The trial court should not even consider custody and placement until both parties have had the opportunity to review each other's plans. Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212, 287 Wis. 2d 472, 704 N.W.2d 916, 05-0346.
Sub. (1m) does not relieve the court of the obligation to articulate how its decision bears on the child's best interests if one parent, who does not timely file a parenting plan, waives the right to object to the other party's plan. Sub. (5) (am) requires the court to consider the child's best interests in absolute terms. Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212, 287 Wis. 2d 472, 704 N.W.2d 916, 05-0346.
Sub. (4) (a) 2. does not require a court to grant each parent equal placement if the court determines that the placement should be modified. In making modification determinations, the circuit court is to maximize the amount of time a child spends with the child's parents within an overall placement schedule, taking into account the best interests of the child, the presumption of the status quo under s. 767.325 (1) and (2) [now s. 767.451], the general factors listed in this section, and the particular factors listed under sub. (5) (am) when relevant to the child. With respect to the modification of legal custody and physical placement orders, maximizing the amount of time cannot be equated with the notion of equal placement. Landwehr v. Landwehr, 2006 WI 64, 291 Wis. 2d 49, 715 N.W.2d 180, 03-2555.
In a custody dispute triggered by a petition for guardianship between a birth parent and a non-parent, the threshold inquiry is whether the parent is unfit, unable to care for the child, or there are compelling reasons for awarding custody to the non-parent. Consideration of a minor's nomination of a guardian presupposes that the need for a guardian has been established. If it is determined that the birth parent is fit and able to care for the child and no compelling reasons exist to appoint a non-parent guardian, then the minor's nomination of a guardian becomes moot. Nicholas C.L. v. Julie R.L., 2006 WI App 119, 293 Wis. 2d 819, 719 N.W.2d 508, 05-1754.
Enforcement of surrogacy agreements promotes stability and permanence in family relationships because it allows the intended parents to plan for the arrival of their child, reinforces the expectations of all parties to the agreement, and reduces contentious litigation. Because the agreement in this case was a valid, enforceable contract, the circuit court's exclusion of the agreement and decision to render a custody and placement order without consideration of the agreement constituted an erroneous exercise of discretion. Rosecky v. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, 349 Wis. 2d 84, 833 N.W.2d 634, 11-2166.
Groh, 110 Wis. 2d 117 (1983), is still good law, subject to the expanded authority granted over intrastate moves of 150 or more miles. Accordingly, the circuit court in this case had no authority to prospectively order a parent to not move beyond 45 miles from the marital home. By its enactment of s. 767.481, the legislature has made a judgment that moves of less than 150 miles are not subject to the best interests of the children standard. Rather than providing a court authority to prohibit geographical separation, sub. (4) (a) 2. presumes such separation exists and directs the court to consider the separation when establishing a placement schedule. Derleth v. Cordova, 2013 WI App 142, 352 Wis. 2d 51, 841 N.W.2d 552, 12-2018.
Sub. (2) (d) permits, but does not mandate, an analysis of whether a party has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of domestic abuse. The legislature chose to require the parties and guardian ad litem to ask the court to consider whether there was a pattern or serious incident of domestic abuse. By not doing so at the time of the original divorce, the parties waived the right to seek application of the presumption in sub. (2) (d) based upon the facts that existed at the time they stipulated to joint custody. A party is free to seek application of the presumption in a post-divorce action if new facts support the presumption. Glidewell v. Glidewell, 2015 WI App 64, 364 Wis. 2d 588, 869 N.W.2d 796, 14-1957.
One may only overcome the presumption against sole or joint custody set forth in sub. (2) (d) 1. by successfully completing treatment designed for batterers and provided by a certified program or provider. Valadez v. Valadez, 2022 WI App 2, 400 Wis. 2d 523, 969 N.W.2d 770, 20-1006.
Custody—To Which Parent? Podell, Peck, & First. 56 MLR 51 (1972).
The Best Interest of the Child Doctrine in Wisconsin Custody Cases. Hofer. 64 MLR 343 (1980).
In the Interest of a Child: A Comparative Look at the Treatment of Children Under Wisconsin and Minnesota Custody Statutes. Walsh. 85 MLR 929 (2002).
Gender Equity and Procrustean Presumptions: A comment on the Recent Changes in Wisconsin's Law Regarding Child Custody and Placement. Rue. 2001 WLR 1177.
Debating the Standard in Child Custody Placement Decisions. Molvig. Wis. Law. July 1998.
Wisconsin's Custody, Placement, and Paternity Reform Legislation. Walther. Wis. Law. Apr. 2000.
Domestic Abuse: Little Impact on Child Custody and Placement. Meuer, Gibart, & Roach. Wis. Law. Dec. 2018.