Wis. Stats. §767.43(1) does not require a grandparent, greatgrandparent or stepparent to prove a “parent-child” relationship in order to petition for visitation.
Father was entitled to decide whether having the children having contact with certain third parties during their visitation with their grandfather was in their best interests. (Not published, but citable.)
Trial court did not err in declining to require the grandparents to prove a significant triggering event occurred because Holtzman does not apply to cases under Wis. Stat. §767.43(3). Also, the court gave appropriate weight to father’s proposed visitation schedule as required by Troxel v. Granville, in deciding his motion to modify visitation to grandparents.
Dismissal of guardianship petition in same-sex relationship affirmed. Equitable estoppel does not apply and petitioner was not a parent with the meaning of Barstad or §54.15(5). (Not published, but citable.)
Grandparents did not rebut presumption that the decision of the mother, a fit parent with primary placement, regarding the existing visitation, sufficiently served the best interests of the children, even though the grandparents had a parent-like relationship with the children. Since the mother had not denied visitation, there was no need for a visitation order. The facts of this case demonstrate no need for state intervention against the mother’s due process rights to make decision concerning the care, custody and control of her children.
Wis. Stat. §767.245 does not require a showing of parental unfitness before a court can override a parent’s decision regarding grandparent visitation. Troxel requires only a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children, but allows a state court to read this presumption into a statute silent on this topic. Therefore, when applying §767.245(3), circuit courts must presume that a fit parent’s decision regarding grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the child.
Burden of proof is on nonmoving parent to show it is not in the children’s best interests to travel to Iran with their father. Court properly considered child’s best interests, including concerns about the father abducting the child and the lack of a remedy should that occur.
Trial court did not exceed discretionary authority where it awarded grandmother expansive visitation right. Such order did not violated father’s fundamental liberty rights as father maintained most decision making authority. However, trial court exceeded its authority when it ordered father to obtain psychotherapeutic treatment for child.
Denial of visitation between a child and alleged father in a divorce proceeding does not terminate the alleged father’s parental rights.
(1) The court’s broad authority in visitation matters allows it to limit visitation to within the state; (2) “Endangerment” child standard applies only to denial visitation. Restriction of visitation is governed by best interest of child standard.
No cause of action for civil action for emotional distress against custodial parent for interfering with judicially fixed visitation rights of noncustodial parent.
Child’s great-aunt cannot be summarily denied visitation. Legislature intended that best interest of child should control decision to grant visitation. Thus, persons other than grandparents and great-grandparents can petition for visitation.
Standard of proof for modification of visitation is different from standard for modification of custody since modification of visitation impacts less upon the welfare of a child than a complete transfer of custody.