In Interest of A.E.H.
Guardianship and TPR proceedings are custody proceedings within the meaning of the UCCJA. Under the UCCJA, the Wisconsin court properly assumed jurisdiction and could modify the California custody decree.
In Interest of J.T.
Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction, but, the court did not have jurisdiction under the UCCJA, since the children did not have a significant connection with the state. Summer visitation is insufficient to establish maximum contact with Wisconsin.
In Re Marriage of Davidson v. Davidson
(1) Court has personal jurisdiction over mother where she has notice and opportunity under UCCJA. (2) Iowa was home state for children under UCCJA where the children had lived there for 15 months, then Wisconsin for three and one-half months, then moved back to Iowa.
In Re Marriage of Michalik v. Michalik
(1) To the extent that they conflict, PKPA preempts the UCCJA. (2) PKPA prohibits a state court from exercising jurisdiction in any child custody dispute over which another state is currently exercising jurisdiction. (3) The state that initially enters a child custody determination has the sole prerogative to modify that determination, as long as the modification is valid under its own law and either the child or a contestant continues to live in that state.
In Re Custody of Kaitlyn Marie Kalbes
Where wife moved to Wisconsin when pregnant and filed action after child was born, Wisconsin was child’s “home state” under Wis. Stat. §822.02(7) and Wisconsin has initial jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. §822.21(1).
In Re Matter of the Guardianship of Alexis C.
Trial court property found jurisdiction under the UCCJEA although child had only be in Wisconsin three months at time of filing. There would be no purpose in finding Indiana to be the home state since Grandmother in Indiana did not claim custody.
Articles on Trusts and Divorce
Articles from scholarly/legal journals on trusts and divorce.
In Re Marriage of Jones
Income from and increased value of discretionary trust are not marital property.
Marriage of Grohmann v. Grohmann
SS 80 defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived. If husband is obligated to report trust income as is own, then, regardless of whether he receives distributions from the trust, 17% of the trust income is payable as child support.
In Re Paternity of Lachelle A.C.
Trial court has no authority to order past support paid into trust rather than to state to recoup AFDC benefits.