Court Opinion

ID: 9521844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:13:26.369812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:17.967655
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 36. (concurring). I write to explain how I read the statutes applicable to the present case.
¶ 37. First, I discuss how a circuit court proceeds under a request to modify an order of physical placement, including the meaning of the word "maximizes."
¶ 38. Second, I discuss the statutory requirement that a circuit court state its reasons in writing for modification of physical placement.
H-l
¶ 39. The circuit court faced with a request to modify an order of physical placement more than two years after the initial order was entered under Wis. Stat. § 767.24 should approach the request as follows:1
¶ 40. The circuit court must determine whether to substantially alter the time a parent may spend with his or her child. Before making any modification that would alter the time a parent may spend with his or her child, the circuit court must find:
*74(1) The modification is in the best interest of the child,2 and
(2) A substantial change of circumstance since the last order substantially affecting physical placement.3
¶ 41. In determining the best interest of the child under (1) above, the circuit court considers the rebut-table presumption that continuing the child's physical placement with the parent with whom the child resides for the greater period of time is in the best interest of the child.4
¶ 42. After considering the presumption, making the necessary findings, and deciding to modify the physical placement, the circuit court then must decide what the physical placement should be. In deciding the modified physical placement, the circuit court "shall consider the factors under s. 767.24(5)(am), subject to s. 767.24(5)(bm),5 and shall make its determination in a manner consistent with s. 767.24.1'6
*75¶ 43. Wisconsin Stat. § 767.24(5)(am) provides that the circuit court "shall consider all facts relevant to the best interest of the child" and lists 17 factors the circuit court shall consider in making its determination about periods of physical placement.
¶ 44. The circuit court shall make its determination about how to modify the physical placement "in a manner consistent with s. 767.24." This reference to "a manner consistent with s. 767.24" is unclear.7 The majority opinion reasonably concludes that the reference in § 767.325(5m) to § 767.24 includes § 767.24(4) (as well as any other provision in § 767.24(4) applicable to physical placement), which governs physical placement when a circuit court orders sole or joint legal custody in the initial order.
¶ 45. Under Wis. Stat. § 767.24(4), in modifying physical placement the circuit court "shall consider each case on the basis of the factors in sub. (5) (am)... [and] shall set a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maxi*76mizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and accommodations for different households."8 The question then arises about the meaning of the word "maximizes."9
¶ 46. To harmonize the statutes, I conclude that in complying with Wis. Stat. § 767.24(5m) by considering the best interest of the child and the 17 factors, the circuit court shall also "maximize[] the amount of time the child may spend with each parent" by setting a placement schedule that considers the actual amount of time the child is likely to spend with the parent. In other words, the circuit court in setting a placement schedule should, in addition to considering all the other factors required by statute, take into account the actual amount of time the child is likely to spend with each parent. Thus the circuit court might consider such matters as the time the child is, for example, in school, or with a caretaker, or asleep, and the times a parent works or is otherwise unavailable to be with the child.
¶ 47. I conclude that the approach I have set forth satisfies the statutory requirements and gives meaning to all parts of the statutes.
H I — I
¶ 48. I also write to discuss part IV of the majority opinion, majority op., ¶¶ 33-34, relating to the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 767.325(5) that when either party *77opposes modification of physical placement, the court shall state in writing its reason for the modification. Ip. the instant case, one of the parents opposed the modification to the physical placement and the circuit court modified physical placement.
¶ 49. Wisconsin Stat. § 767.325(5) states in full:
(5) Reasons for modification. If either party opposes modification or termination of a legal custody or physical placement order under this section the court shall state, in writing, its reasons for the modification or termination.
¶ 50. The writing requirement in Wis. Stat. § 767.325(5) may serve several purposes. First and most importantly, the written statement assists the party objecting to modification to understand better the reasons for the circuit court's modification of placement. A circuit court's written statement of reasoning is particularly important in family law cases because of the high percentage of self-represented litigants.10
¶ 51. In addition, a written statement of reasons for modification forces the circuit court to think through and express its rationale carefully; allows for easier appellate review to determine whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion; and will later assist a circuit court that may be asked for further modification of physical placement.
*78¶ 52. That the legislature wanted a circuit court to write its reasoning is evidenced by yet another requirement applicable to the present case, namely, that a circuit court, in physical placement disputes, state its findings relating to the best interest of the child. Wisconsin Stat. § 767.24(6) states as follows in pertinent part: "If. . . physical placement is contested, the court shall state in writing why its findings relating to . . . physical placement are in the best interest of the child."
¶ 53. The circuit court in the instant case did not state in writing the reasons for the modification or why its findings are in the best interest of the child. The majority opinion concludes that "the circuit court order substantially met the requirement" that the order be in writing, reasoning that the written order incorporated by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated orally on the record.11
¶ 54. I do not think that the writing requirements of Wis. Stat. § 767.24(6) and § 767.325(5) were met in the instant case. Nor were the requirements "substantially met." The legislature has not stated that the circuit court shall incorporate by reference an oral record of its reasons.12
*79¶ 55. In the instant case neither party claimed that the order did not meet the statutory writing requirements.
¶ 56. Were this court or the court of appeals considering a challenge to a circuit court's order modifying placement based on the lack of the writings required by Wis. Stat. § 767.24(6) and § 767.325(5), the reviewing court should, in my opinion, remand the case to the circuit court to state its reasoning in writing before determining whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion.
¶ 57. For the reasons set forth I write separately.

 Wis. Stat. § 767.325(l)(b).

 Wis. Stat. § 767.325(l)(b)l.a.

 Wis. Stat. § 767.325(l)(b)l.b. Because the initial court order did not provide substantially equal periods of physical placement for the parties, Wis. Stat. § 767.325(2) does not come into play in the present case.

 Wis. Stat. § 767.325(l)(b)2.b.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 767.24(5)(bm) refers to an abusive parent. It has no application in the present case.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 767.325 provides as follows:
Except for matters under s. 767.327 or 767.329, the following provisions are applicable to modifications of legal custody and physical placement orders:
(5m) Factors to consider. ... [I]n all actions to modify legal custody or physical placement orders, the court shall consider the *75factors under s. 767.24(5)(am), subject to s. 767.24(5)(bm), and shall make its determination in a manner consistent with s. 767.24.

 See Abbas v. Palmersheim, 2004 WI App 126, ¶ 20, 275 Wis. 2d 311, 685 N.W.2d 546.
Does the reference in Wis. Stat. § 767.325(5m) to § 767.24 refer to everything in § 767.24 relating to physical placement, or is the reference only to the provisions of § 767.24 relating to the manner in which the circuit court makes its decisions, as set forth in § 767.24(6)? If the reference is to § 767.24(4), why did the legislature use the word "manner" and why did the legislature not explicitly refer to § 767.24(4), as it explicitly referred to § 767.24(5)(am) and (bm)? It seems reasonable, however, that a circuit court modifying a physical placement order consider the factors set forth in § 767.24(4).

 Wis. Stat. § 767.24(4)(a)2. (emphasis added).

 Several court of appeals decisions have concluded that the statutes do not require equal placement. See, e.g., Keller v. Keller, 2002 WI App 161, ¶¶ 2, 10, 12, 256 Wis. 2d 401, 647 N.W.2d 426; Arnold v. Arnold, 2004 WI App 62, ¶ 2, 270 Wis. 2d 705, 679 N.W.2d 296.

 See The Wisconsin Pro Se Working Group, Meeting The Challenge of Self-Represented Litigants in Wisconsin 8 (Dec. 2000) (available at http://www.wicourts.gov/about/ pubs/supreme/docs/prosereport.pdf) (reporting that in 1999, 53% of the family case litigants in judicial administrative district 10 were not represented by counsel and that 72% of the family case litigants in judicial administrative district 1 (Milwaukee County) were not represented by counsel).

 Majority op., ¶ 34.

 The majority cites State v. Coble, 100 Wis. 2d 179, 215, 301 N.W.2d 221 (1981), for the proposition that substantial compliance by the circuit court is sufficient. Coble is not applicable to the instant case. In Coble, Milwaukee County jury commissioners improperly allowed jurors to be dismissed from the jury pool based on the jurors' requests. This court held that the Milwaukee County Circuit Court was in substantial compliance with the jury selection statute and did not frustrate its purpose because, regardless of this error, it provided for an essentially random jury pool. In Coble, the legislative purpose, *79namely random jury selection, was met. In the instant case, the legislative purposes for requiring written reasons have not been fulfilled.