The termination of parental rights in Wisconsin is a very serious issue. Courts do not take requests for the termination of rights lightly, since any outcome can have grave consequences for all of the parties involved. In evaluating a petition for the termination of parental rights, courts will look primarily at whether termination is in the best interest of the child, and which circumstances will best ensure the child’s future success and happiness. As illustrated in the case below, in some circumstances, this can mean terminating the rights of biological parents in order to allow a child to be adopted by foster parents or other individuals.
The modification of spousal maintenance is an issue that arises frequently after a divorce. In some cases, a party may not be satisfied with the original maintenance award issued by the court and may try to have it changed after the requisite period of time has passed. In other instances, circumstances may change for one or both parties, causing a party to file for the modification of an award. Although many modifications are warranted, courts do not take such requests lightly and will require parties to prove that there is a significant basis for changing a maintenance award. A recent case before the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin looks at both acceptable and unacceptable bases for modification.
Dealing with divorce is never easy. It can be emotionally, mentally, and financially draining. On top of the many practical adjustments and changes to life routines, ex-spouses must deal with the complicated and lengthy nature of divorce proceedings, which can be particularly difficult when a divorce is contentious. While litigants may often wish to ignore what is going on in their legal case and turn away from dealing with tough issues, this kind of an approach can cause significant problems during a divorce. As a recent case before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals illustrates, when one spouse chooses not to participate or be cooperative in divorce proceedings, it can lead to sanctions down the road.
In Wisconsin, courts may consider a wide range of factors when determining custody between two divorcing parents. Among these factors, Wisconsin courts are statutorily required to consider evidence of past domestic abuse. Wisconsin’s statutes do not require that a past history of abuse be dispositive, but it must be one of the factors that a court considers. A recent case before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals illustrates how this factor may be weighed against others in evaluating custody arrangements.
When a couple divorces and reaches an agreement on issues such as child support and spousal maintenance, the terms of that agreement are considered final. They can only be changed through a petition to the court arguing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances that warrants a change in financial arrangements. What constitutes a substantial change in circumstances is largely up to the discretion of the court considering the case, and many different factors may be considered. A recent Wisconsin case looks at whether changes in income by one or both parties can justify a change in child support amounts.
When dealing with family law matters, it can be difficult to ascertain the true interests of the parties and all those affected, without conducting an evidentiary hearing. While briefs and motions can be carefully crafted in order to present the story from a party’s particular perspective, hearings are often necessary to understand the full details of a situation and the true impact that any changes to a custody order, or maintenance plan, are likely to have on those involved. At the same time, courts are often constrained by time and resources from conducting hearings on every occasion, and may opt instead to hold hearings only in those cases where they are most necessary. A recent case before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals looks at whether courts are required to hold hearings in some circumstances and whether that is a basis for appeal.
Child custody and placement can be one of the most contentious aspects of any divorce. Parents feel strongly about spending time with their kids and having a long-lasting and healthy relationship with them. Splitting time between both spouses can make that difficult and can lead to anger and resentment between ex-spouses. In a recent case before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the court considered what to do when one spouse asks to modify the child custody arrangement to which she previously agreed.
In Wisconsin, when a parent is unwilling or unfit to take care of his or her child, the parental rights of the individual may be terminated through special proceedings. The termination of parental rights is governed by statute and is taken very seriously, since it can have a huge impact on both the life of the child and the life of the parents. A recent case before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals considers the question of what to do when lower courts deviate from termination of parental rights procedures.
When dealing with a divorce in Wisconsin, courts must give careful consideration to the division of existing property, assets, and debts that a couple may have, as well as how to divide future obligations and income, if necessary. While Wisconsin courts typically start from the presumption that marital property should be divided equally between two spouses, such arrangements can be modified when it would be in the interest of the courts and the couple to do so. A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals case considered and applied a creative approach for resolving spousal maintenance issues between a couple by instead offering one spouse an additional lump sum property award.
Even after a criminal defendant completes his or her jail sentence, restrictions on freedom may remain. When a defendant leaves a jail or prison, a judge may impose terms of supervised release, which place certain restrictions on a defendant’s activities and require him or her to check in regularly with a probation officer. For defendants convicted of sex crimes, these terms of supervised release may be particularly restrictive because of the very serious nature of their crimes and the high rates of recidivism for sex offenders. A recent case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals looks at particularly restrictive terms and a defendant’s efforts to oppose them.
In United States v. Warren, Mr. Warren was charged with transporting and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to five years in prison and 15 years of supervised release. Over the course of 19 days in 2003, Mr. Warren managed a Yahoo Group that he used to share and distribute child pornography to other members. He also solicited members to add to the collection of child pornography that he had created. In February 2004, federal agents executed a search of Mr. Warren’s apartment and seized his computer. Mr Warren admitted to hosting the Yahoo group and to possessing child pornography. He pled guilty to the charges against him and was sentenced to jail time and supervised release. Toward the end of his prison term, the probation officers in charge of Mr. Warren’s eventual release petitioned the court to modify Mr. Warren’s conditions of supervised release. Specifically, they sought to add a travel condition to his release, requiring him to notify his probation officers whenever he sought to travel outside the state. They also sought to impose a no-contact-with-minors condition and a polygraph condition.