Archives: Family Law

For years, Wisconsin appellate courts have wrestled with the treatment of defined benefit plans as either income available for support, property to be divided or (shudders) both. Now a new case creates substantial confusion.

On the other hand, one’s heart has to go out to grandparents who have lost a child through death and then run the risk of losing their grandchildren due to the capriciousness of the surviving parent. Yet both sides cannot be right.

In the final days of the 2008-09 term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tensfeldt v. Haberman, and, although the factual situation is somewhat complicated, bear with me — it has some important family law and ethical implications.

The Court of Appeals decision in Heppner raises a number of serious questions, not the least of which is, whatever happened to trial court discretion?

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued one of the most … er … interesting decisions in family law in a long time.

Continued analysis of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals consolidated decision in Hendrick v. Hendrick and State v. Skarzynski.

Garry and Jennifer Hendrick were married in early September of 1999. Jennifer’s daughter was born in late January of 2000. Before Jennifer started her divorce action against Garry, Garry had himself, the girl and the couple’s other child tested to see if he was their biological father. He is not. The State started a paternity action.

The Court opf Appeals opinion in Stevenson creates some slightly “Itchy and Scratchy” issues and questions.

From the first two sentences of a recent Dist. II Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, it was evident that it was not going to be good news for Jeffery B. Stevenson.

It doesn’t take a village to raise children. It takes parents. That’s one of the central implications of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recent decision is Lubinski v. Lubinski.