Parental rights - Wisconsin
Parental rights in Wisconsin
3 of 3 questions have been reviewed for Wisconsin. A question shown as "Not yet reviewed" makes no claim either way.
Educational reference, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Family law is state-specific and it changes: a statute or case cited here may have been amended, repealed or overruled since the review date shown. Verify against the primary source before relying on anything on this page, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state about your own situation.
When a non-parent or the state asks a court to override a fit parent's decision about their child, what must they show?
Wisconsin: Fit-parent presumption, rebuttable
Statute: Wis. Stat. secs. 767.001(1s), 767.43(3)
Wisconsin applies the fit-parent presumption to third-party visitation. Its supreme court took Michels v. Lyons specifically to settle what a grandparent must prove to overcome a fit parent's decision, and held that because a fit parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and upbringing of the child, the grandparent visitation statute must withstand strict scrutiny. The statutory scheme also starts from both parents: under joint legal custody neither parent's rights are superior.
Authority
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68-69 (2000) (plurality opinion) Holding
That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. ... Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i. e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children.
- Michels v. Lyons (In re Visitation of A.A.L.), 2019 WI 57, para. 1, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486 Holding
We accepted certification from the court of appeals to clarify the standard of proof required for a grandparent to overcome the presumption that a fit parent's visitation decision is in the child's best interest.
- Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, para. 2, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486 Holding
We recognize that a fit parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and upbringing of his or her child and therefore, the Grandparent Visitation Statute must withstand strict scrutiny.
- Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, para. 44 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring) Concurrence - binds nobody
I agree with the majority that Wisconsin Stat. sec. 767.43(3) infringes upon parents' fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and upbringing of their children and therefore must withstand strict scrutiny in order to be constitutional. Majority op., para. 2.
- Wis. Stat. sec. 767.001(1s) Statute
Joint legal custody means the condition under which both parties share legal custody and neither party's legal custody rights are superior, except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parties in the final judgment or order.
Can parents' own custody or child-support agreement bind them without a judge approving it?
Wisconsin: Court approval required to bind
Statute: Wis. Stat. secs. 767.34(1), (2)(a), 767.511; 42 U.S.C. sec. 667(b)(2)
Parents in an annulment, divorce or legal separation may stipulate about property, maintenance, support and legal custody and physical placement, but the statute makes every such stipulation subject to the approval of the court, and bars approval of a support stipulation unless support is determined consistently with the guideline statute (the guideline, or a deviation with the required findings). An agreement that waives support or sets an unmodifiable ceiling is against public policy and does not bind the court, because the child's best interests transcend the parties' agreement. Federal law independently makes the guideline amount a rebuttable presumption, which a written or on-the-record finding that it would be unjust or inappropriate is sufficient to rebut.
Authority
- Wis. Stat. sec. 767.34(1), (2)(a) Statute
The parties in an action for an annulment, divorce, or legal separation may, subject to the approval of the court, stipulate for a division of property, for maintenance payments, for the support of children, or for legal custody and physical placement ... A court may not approve a stipulation for child support or family support unless the stipulation provides for payment of child support determined in a manner consistent with s. 767.511 or 767.89.
- Ondrasek v. Tenneson, 158 Wis. 2d 690, 692, 462 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1990) Holding
Because we hold that an unmodifiable waiver or ceiling is against public policy, we reverse the order and remand for a hearing.
- 42 U.S.C. sec. 667(a), (b)(2) Statute
There shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of such guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. A written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, as determined under criteria established by the State, shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption
One parent enrols the child in daycare, an activity or a private school without the other's agreement. Must the other parent pay a share?
Wisconsin: Liable only if reasonable
Statute: Wis. Stat. secs. 767.001(1s), (2m), (5), 767.511; Wis. Admin. Code DCF secs. 150.02(29), 150.035(1)(b)6.
Child care and activity costs are variable costs, and the rule has three limits that matter when one parent acted alone. First, variable costs are by definition only the reasonable costs above basic support. Second, in shared placement the court assigns responsibility for them in proportion to placement and on the basis of a detailed list the parties provide, so the duty is assigned by the court rather than created by one parent's spending. Third, choice of school and nonemergency health care are enumerated major decisions, which under joint legal custody neither parent may decide alone; choice of a child care provider and extracurricular activities are not enumerated, and during their own placement each parent makes the routine daily decisions about the child's care.
Authority
- Wis. Admin. Code DCF sec. 150.02(29) Regulation
Variable costs means the reasonable costs above basic support costs incurred by or on behalf of a child, including but not limited to, the cost of child care, tuition, a child's special needs, and other activities that involve substantial cost.
- Wis. Admin. Code DCF sec. 150.035(1)(b)6. Regulation
the court shall assign responsibility for payment of the child's variable costs in proportion to each parent's share of physical placement, and based upon a detailed list of the variable costs provided by the parties. Due consideration shall be given to a disparity in the parents' income and the transportation costs associated with each parent's respective periods of physical placement.
- Wis. Stat. sec. 767.001(2m) Statute
Major decisions includes, but is not limited to, decisions regarding consent to marry, consent to enter military service, consent to obtain a motor vehicle operator's license, authorization for nonemergency health care and choice of school and religion.
- Wis. Stat. sec. 767.001(1s) Statute
Joint legal custody means the condition under which both parties share legal custody and neither party's legal custody rights are superior, except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parties in the final judgment or order.
- Wis. Stat. sec. 767.001(5) Statute
Physical placement means the condition under which a party has the right to have a child physically placed with that party and has the right and responsibility to make, during that placement, routine daily decisions regarding the child's care, consistent with major decisions made by a person having legal custody.
- Rick v. Opichka, 2010 WI App 23, 323 Wis. 2d 510, 522-24, 780 N.W.2d 159 Holding
the right and responsibility to make, during that placement, routine daily decisions regarding the child's care, consistent with major decisions made by a person having legal custody
How this was checked
Every citation here was checked against the primary source rather than a summary. U.S. Supreme Court quotes come from the official United States Reports PDFs published by the Library of Congress, and the reporter page shown is the page the quoted words actually print on. State case quotes come from the Caselaw Access Project's page-anchored text of the official reporter. Statutes and regulations are quoted from the issuing legislature's or agency's own site. Quotes are normalised to plain ASCII, which changes punctuation only, never words. Holdings are distinguished from dicta and from concurrences and dissents, which bind nobody, and contrary authority is included and labelled. Not yet reviewed is NOT a finding: it means nobody has read that jurisdiction's law for this question yet, and such a row carries no claim at all. No authority found is a different and weaker statement: a search was run and turned up nothing on point, which is not proof that nothing exists.
Dataset last reviewed 2026-10-17.