Opinion ID: 1233152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the circuit court hearing

Text: ¶ 31. This court is at a disadvantage because it does not have a transcript of the evidentiary portion of the circuit court hearing. We know, however, that the case came before the court as a petition for a temporary guardianship of the person of a minor under Wis. Stat. § 880.15 and that the court assumed the truth of Robin K.'s allegations about the child's placement, commenting that the child's obviously spent a great deal of time with [Robin K.] over the two and a half years, a placement that ended when the guardianship [proceeding] was commenced. ¶ 32. There is a transcript of the court's ruling and the arguments that preceded the ruling. In the arguments, the guardian ad litem recommended the requested guardianship based upon (a) concerns that I see with regard to the parenting that is being provided, (b) the abandonment standard having somewhat been met by the mere fact that the child has not been in the care of the mother for most of the time, (c) the apparent lack of stability in the mother's life, (d) some of the decisions the mother makes are not necessarily in the best interests of her children, (e) the absence of stability in maintaining work or having a regular income, (f) concern about the stability of the mother's relationships with men (four children, three born/one unborn . . . and all of them have different fathers), (g) concerns leading to the intervention of the Sauk County Department of Human Services, and (h) the wellbeing and best interests of the child. ¶ 33. Counsel for Robin K. made legal arguments about guardianship and how the mother could terminate the guardianship if the mother could show that she had become a suitable parent. This guardianship is not something that goes on indefinitely, counsel argued. I have been involved in guardianships that have terminated and I think that all [that] has to be shown is that it's in the child's best interests to be with the mother. ¶ 34. [T]he most telling evidence against the mother in this case, counsel added, is the fact that she has allowed [Robin K.] to have this child[,] and the Court then has to ask itself why. And I think the answer is clear. Because she didn't feel she could care for the child. ¶ 35. Lamanda M. fired back: I never thought that I couldn't take care of my son. . . . I still don't understand why they think I'm not capable of taking care of my son, or stable enough to take care of my son, when I've had my girls and I'm stable enough to take care of them. And I know that I'm young and I know that I have some money problems and some problems with having my friends come over. But . . . I think everybody once in their life goes through money situations when they lose their job or they can't find new employment. ¶ 36. In its ruling, the court stated that it had difficulty with the guardianship statute in a situation such as this. The court indicated there were no limitations on commencing the action and no apparent way to end the guardianship. [W]hat is the standard to be applied? the court asked. The court then answered its own question: [T]he guardianship does not have a standard. Although the court expressed concern with the situation as it[']s been described to exist in [the mother's] home, the number of people there, the number of children, the somewhat chaotic atmosphere, and the general allegations of neglect, it concluded: I don't believe that the guardianship is appropriate in this case. The court then dismissed the petition. ¶ 37. The issue presented on review is what standard the circuit court should employ in determining whether to grant a temporary guardianship of the person of a minor child when the guardianship is opposed by the child's mother.