Wisconsin Family Lawyer Blog

Last week I attended the thirty-sixth annual conference of the Wisconsin Inter-Professional Committee on Divorce. One full day was devoted to the topic of the voice of the child in custody and placement disputes. Wisconsin Statutes provide that the "wishes of the child" is a specific factor for the court to consider. See Wis. Stats. Sec. 767.41(5).

But what does that mean in practice? How much weight should the child's wishes be given? And how can the child's wishes be accurately ascertained in the fraught environment of a pending court action?

A pending Wisconsin Court of Appeals case explores these issues in the context of a post-judgment placement modification motion. Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle argued in that appeal that it was error for the trial court to base its placement decision exclusively on the child's preference. Read our briefs here. Watch this blog for updates.

Kris Lehker

Can a putative father obtain an injunction in a Wisconsin paternity case before he has been adjudicated the father? The answer - at least in one court - appears to be "yes."

Mom filed a paternity action regarding her unborn child. Alleged dad learned that mom was planning to subject the baby to an elective medical procedure shortly after the baby's birth. Specifically, mom was planning to have the baby circumcised.

Alleged Dad objected to the circumcision on health and cultural grounds. Dad moved for a temporary order enjoining the parties from consenting to non-emergency medical procedures pending further order.

Because the baby's due date was rapidly approaching, the court scheduled the motion for a hearing on the injunctive relief just a week after dad filed his motion. On the Friday before the Monday hearing, the court ruined a guardian ad litem's weekend, appointing him in the case with a preliminary recommendation due Monday.

Ultimately the parties settled, stipulating to an interim order enjoining both of them from consenting to circumcision pending further order. They reached this stipulation despite an interim recommendation from the guardian ad litem that the injunction be denied and the mother be given authority to proceed with circumcision.

Thus while there was no court ruling on the question of a man's standing to obtain injunctive relief concerning a child with no adjudicated father, the court appeared ready to address the medical consent issue squarely - appointing a guardian ad litem to address the merits, scheduling an emergency hearing.

The final outcome: Alleged dad was adjudicated the father. Months later the parties reached a permanent agreement that neither would consent to circumcision.