Archives: Children and Divorce

A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, which is recommended for publication, contradicts long-held beliefs regarding the ability of parties to contract for determination of child issues outside of the court system.

What happens when new legislation causes a direct conflict with an existing statute? Did the Wisconsin legislature forget about the existing law? How does an appellate court, which is supposed to interpret statutes, not rewrite them, deal with such a conflict?

On the one hand, some courts have moral qualms about overnight guests, especially if the divorce is not final. On the other hand, society seems to have accepted far more permissive bounds of sexual conduct today than in the past. Where should the line be drawn?

Note to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals: If shirking is an “unfortunate term,” as you characterized it in your recent family law decision, Chen v. Warner, please stop using it!

Gov. Jim Doyle recently signed into law 2003 Wisconsin Act 130. Among other things, this bill creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding legal custody to a parent who has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of domestic abuse, requires a GAL and mediator to have training related to domestic violence and requires the GAL to investigate whether either party has engaged in domestic violence.

A frequent issue in family law revolves around a child’s privilege with his or her therapist. On occasion, one of the parents will attempt to secure the therapy records against the wishes of the other parent and sometimes, against the wishes of the Guardian ad Litem and the therapist. A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in a non-family law case may create serious problems in keeping these records private.

The issue of jurisdiction over family court issues became clearer recently when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued its opinion in Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.C., 2003 WI 61.

When there is a significant dispute over children, in most jurisdictions the court will appoint a representative for the child.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court made its first venture into the complicated issue of the statute of limitations for pursuing child support arrears on May 30, when it decided State v. Hamilton.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals intermittently tells us that it is primarily an error-correcting court. Recently, however, the court couldn’t resist the temptation to depart from that primary role to make a little new law, in Randy A.J. v. Norma I.J.,