Category Archives: Child Custody

Simon v. Wilson

Trial court affirmed for prohibiting mother from consuming alcohol during placement, but reversed for prohibiting her from possessing firearms.

Gadsby v. Martinez

Modification of custody affirmed where mother had notice that custody was an issue and made no objection so she waived any claim.

Trial court does not have authority to change placement within two years of the initial placement order, absent finding of harm, if the modification would substantially alter the time a parent spends with the child.

Shulka v. Siraji

Trial court could condition mother retaining custody on her moving back to Wisconsin due to unique fact situation.

Derleth v. Cordova

Circuit court had no authority to prospectively order that Wife not move beyond forty-five miles from the marital home.

In Re Marriage of Dohm

No error in finding a substantial change of circumstances where mother moved away from father and child and child wished to live primarily with father. Trial court did not have to discuss all the statutory factors – just the pertinent ones.

Soronen v. Sorenen

No error in transferring primary placement where the court considered the children’s wishes, improved grades, mother’s abdication of parenting to her boyfriend who was a drug user and other factors. Any question about validity of ex parte order of the FCC is moot. (Not published, but citable.)

In Re Marriage of Stumpner v. Cutting

Circuit court lacked the authority under Wis. Stat. §767.451(3) to sua sponte modify the physical placement order. A court cannot modify a placement order in the absence of a petition, motion or order to show cause by a party.

Lubinski v. Lubinski

Father’s physical placement rights are not transferable and cannot be delegated to his new wife.

Landwehr v. Landwehr

Wis. Stat. §767.24(4)(a)2 does not require a court to grant each parent equal placement if the court determines that the placement should be modified.

In Re Marriage of Bernier v. Bernier

Circuit court erred by requiring father to pay 50% of GAL fees in a Wis. Stat. §767.242(5)(b)1.b action.

In Re Paternity of Pero

Absent a motion, petition or order to show cause brought by a party, the trial court lacked authority to amend or modify a custody order from joint to sole custody.

In Re Marriage of Guelig v. Guelig

Father did not waive his right to object to wife’s parenting plan when he failed to submit his own plan prior to the scheduling conference.

In Re Marriage of Goberville v. Goberville

Trial court erroneously exercised it discretion where it does not refer to statutory factors, but was largely based on its belief that the temporary schedule was working and the recommendation of the GAL.

In Re the Custody and Support of Neven D.H.: Helling v. Lambert

Award of primary placement to father reversed as trial court’s opinion of the stability of non-marital relationships based on other paternity cases is not sufficient to support a factual finding that the mother’s specific living situation in this case is unstable.

In Re Marriage of Lofthus

Parents do not have a fundamental right to equal placement after divorce – state’s regulation of post-divorce custody disputes is constitutional.

In Re Marriage of Greene v. Hahn

Trial court did not err in granting husband the authority to determine the child’ place of school, even though wife had primary physical placement. Trial court appropriate applied Wisconsin statutes. Trial court did not err in finding a substantial change in circumstances where, in addition to the child’s age change, he was failing in school, using marijuana and engaged in other illegal or inappropriate behavior.