Portion of divorce judgment effecting a prospective change in placement is invalid. Trial court lacks statutory authority to order a change of placement that is prospective and contingent on the occurrence of some anticipated event.
Parents do not have a fundamental right to equal placement after divorce – state’s regulation of post-divorce custody disputes is constitutional.
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.
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.
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.
Circuit court erred by requiring father to pay 50% of GAL fees in a Wis. Stat. §767.242(5)(b)1.b action.
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.
Father’s physical placement rights are not transferable and cannot be delegated to his new wife.
Circuit court had no authority to prospectively order that Wife not move beyond forty-five miles from the marital home.
Trial court could condition mother retaining custody on her moving back to Wisconsin due to unique fact situation.