Wisconsin Family Lawyer Blog

If you're looking for a Wisconsin court's assistance with enforcing an order from another state, one trap to be wary of is the differing registration provisions for enforcement of support orders vs. enforcement of custody and placement orders.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) sets forth at Wis. Stat. § 822.35 the procedure for registering an order for placement and custody. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) sets forth at Wis. Stat. § 769.601 - 608 the procedure for registering an order for support. Both statutes specify the registration procedures, the steps that the registering court must take to provide notice, and the procedures and standards for contesting registration. While the basic procedures are similar, there are differences, and registering an order for purposes of one of the statutes will not suffice for registering an order for purposes of the other.

Contact the attorneys at Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle for assistance with these complex statutes.

In January we blogged about a child support issue that's headed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That case has now been scheduled for oral argument. Attorney Keith Wessel of Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle will argue the case before the full Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday, October 6, at 1:30 pm.

Under current Wisconsin child support law, parents may not agree to a maximum amount of child support. Such agreements are held to violate public policy because children should share in their parents' increased earnings. Yet the courts have imposed few restrictions on parents' agreements on a minimum amount of child support. In the case before the court, the child support payer's income decreased - a common scenario in today's economy - yet the payer was precluded from seeking a reduction in his child support payments. We argue that child support should be modifiable as the parents' financial circumstances change, whether the modification is an increase in child support or a decrease in child support.

With the current composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the October 6 argument should be lively and interesting. Oral arguments in the Wisconsin Supreme Court are open to the public. Come hear a thought-provoking argument and, whatever your opinion, demonstrate by your presence that the public cares about this issue.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently certified a child support issue to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an appeal pursued by Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle.

One glaring disparity in Wisconsin law is its treatment of child support agreements. Parents are free to agree to a minimum amount of child support, but agreements to a maximum amount of child support are unenforceable because they violate public policy. The reasoning goes something like this: It's good for children to share in their parents' increased earnings, and good for children to have a minimum amount of child support despite a parent's decreased earnings.

This analysis may have been defensible back in the days when kids spent most of their time in one home - usually mom's - and had brief visits in the other home. Now that physical placement (sometimes called custody) is usually shared, it makes no sense to allow child support to increase as the payer's income increases, but not allow child support to decrease as the payer's income decreases.

Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle raised this issue in a case argued at the trial court by Attorney Keith Wessel and briefed on appeal by Attorneys Kris Lehker and Keith Wessel. We argued that a child support payer who suffered an involuntary income decrease should be allowed to seek a corresponding child support modification despite a prior agreement.

On January 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This means that the Court of Appeals declined to decide the case, and instead asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to make the decision. While the Supreme Court has not yet indicated that it will take this case, it does accept most of the cases it receives by certification. In its certification in this case, the Court of Appeals stated, "The issue we certify is whether, or under what circumstances, stipulations imposing a 'floor' [on child support] are unenforceable because they are against public policy."

Stay tuned.

A Michigan child support case has made headlines across the nation recently. Just last month the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Department of Human Services v. Lawrence Michael Beck that even though the father's parental rights had been terminated, his obligation to pay child support could continue. The court based its decision largely on the Michigan legislature's "clear distinction between parental rights and the parental obligation to support a minor child."

In Wisconsin, the legislature has done just the opposite. The Wisconsin Children's Code provides, "An order terminating parental rights permanently severs all legal rights and duties between the parent whose parental rights are terminated and the child. . . ." Wisconsin Statutes Section 48.43(2). Thus in Wisconsin, termination of parental rights ends all legal rights, including the parent's right to spend time with the child, and all legal obligations, including the parent's obligation to provide financial support.