Wis. Stat. § 767.43
Wis. Stat. § 767.43
Biological grandparents had no right to visitation following termination of their son's parental rights and adoption by the child's stepfather. Soergel v. Soergel, 154 Wis. 2d 564, 453 N.W.2d 624 (1990). The visitation petition of a custodial parent's widow did not meet the criteria of sub. (1) when, prior to the custodial parent's death, the non-custodial parent had filed a motion to revise custody. Section 880.155 [now s. 48.9795(12)] governs visitation in the event of a parent's death. Cox v. Williams, 177 Wis. 2d 433, 502 N.W.2d 128 (1993). A paternity case in which the court has retained postjudgment authority to enforce the judgment constitutes an underlying action under which a petition for grandparent visitation may be brought. Paternity of Nastassja L.H.-J., 181 Wis. 2d 666, 512 N.W.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1993). An existing underlying action affecting the family does not alone provide standing to petition under this section. The underlying action must threaten the integrity of a family unit. An action under this section does not apply to intact families. Because the father figure in a household was not the biological or adoptive father of one of the children did not mean the family was not intact. Marquardt v. Hegemann-Glascock, 190 Wis. 2d 447, 526 N.W.2d 834 (Ct. App. 1994). While this section does not apply outside the dissolution of a marriage, it does not preempt the consideration of visitation in circumstances not subject to the statute. A circuit court may consider visitation by a non-parent outside a marriage dissolution situation in the best interests of the child if the non-parent petitioner demonstrates a parent-like relationship with the child and shows a significant triggering event such as substantial interference with that relationship. Custody of H.S.H.-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649, 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995). Public policy does not prohibit a court, relying on its equitable powers, to grant visitation outside this section on the basis of a co-parenting agreement between a biological parent and another when visitation is in the child's best interest. Custody of H.S.H.-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649, 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995). When applying sub. (3), circuit courts must apply the presumption that a fit parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the child, but the court must still make its own assessment of the best interest of the child. Paternity of Roger D.H., 2002 WI App 35, 250 Wis. 2d 747, 641 N.W.2d 440, 00-3333. But see Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486, 17-1142. Under ,Troxel 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the due process clause prevents a court from starting with a clean slate when assessing whether grandparent visitation is in the best interests of the child. Within the best interests framework, the court must afford a parent's decision special weight by applying a rebuttable presumption that the fit parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the child. It is up to the party advocating for nonparental visitation to rebut the presumption by presenting evidence that the offer is not in the child's best interests. Martin L. v. Julie R.L., 2007 WI App 37, 299 Wis. 2d 768, 731 N.W.2d 288, 06-0199. But see Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486, 17-1142. When an existing informal arrangement was sufficient to maintain the established relationship between grandparents and children, state interference in the form of court-ordered placement with the grandparents was unwarranted. The question is not whether the additional time sought by the grandparents with their grandchildren might be good for all concerned. The questions are whether, under the facts of the case, the state should intervene to dictate to the parent with primary placement, that added visitation time is warranted, and, if so, which parent should forfeit a portion of his or her placement time to accommodate the grandparent visitation. Rogers v. Rogers, 2007 WI App 50, 300 Wis. 2d 532, 731 N.W.2d 532, 06-1766. See also Lubinski v. Lubinski, 2008 WI App 151, 314 Wis. 2d 395, 761 N.W.2d 676, 07-1701. TThe award of overnights and a week during the summer in a grandparent visitation order under s. 54.56 [now s. 48.9795(12)] was not contrary to law for being akin to a physical placement award found in divorce cases. There is no difference between the quantity of "physical placement" as that term is used in s. 767.001(5) and the quantity of "visitation" as that word is used in s. 54.56 [now s. 48.9795(12)]. The proper amount of that time is a decision made by the family court in the best interests of the children. The quantity of time ordered does not depend on whether it is a visitation order or a physical placement order. Rick v. Opichka, 2010 WI App 23, 323 Wis. 2d 510, 780 N.W.2d 159, 09-0040. When children visit their grandparents and stay with them as a guest, the grandparents have the responsibility to make routine daily decisions regarding the child's care but may not make any decisions inconsistent with the major decisions made by a person having legal custody. The same is true of a parent who does not have joint legal custody, but does have a right to physical placement. In both instances, the same rules apply: routine daily decisions may be made, but nothing greater. Rick v. Opichka, 2010 WI App 23, 323 Wis. 2d 510, 780 N.W.2d 159, 09-0040. Under Holtzman v. Knott, 193 Wis. 2d 649 (1995), a circuit court may exercise its equitable powers to hear and grant visitation to a non-parent in circumstances when the ch. 767 non-parent visitation provisions do not apply. To apply these equitable powers a circuit court must determine that the petitioner has a pare "parent-like relationship" with the child and that a "significant triggering event" exists justifying state intervention in the child's relationship with a biological or adoptive parent. The triggering event required by Holtzman does not apply to cases brought under the special grandparent provision of sub. (3). Wohlers v. Broughton, 2011 WI App 122, 337 Wis. 2d 107, 805 N.W.2d 118, 09-0488. Subsection (1) does not require a grandparent, great-grandparent, or stepparent who files a motion for visitation rights under sub. (1) to prove that he or she has maintained a relationship similar to a parent-child relationship with the child. Rather, the parent-child relationship element applies only to a person seeking visitation rights who is not a grandparent, great-grandparent, or stepparent. S.A.M. v. Meister, 2016 WI 22, 367 Wis. 2d 447, 876 N.W.2d 746, 14-1283. The grandparent visitation statute under sub. (3) is facially constitutional because it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest because a grandparent must overcome the presumption in favor of a fit parent's visitation decision with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. Sub. (3) was unconstitutional as applied when there was no change in circumstances involving the child's family unit and the grandparent's desire to merely secure a more generous and predictable vacation schedule was not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of the parent's visitation decision. Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486, 17-1142. A circuit court should consider the nature and extent of grandparent visitation only if a grandparent overcomes the presumption in favor of a fit parent's visitation decision with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. A circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent even if the court disagrees with the parent's decision. Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486, 17-1142. Grandparent Visitation Rights. Rothstein. Wis. Law. Nov. 1992. The Effect of C.G.F. and Section 48.925 on Grandparental Visitation Petitions. Hughes. Wis. Law. Nov. 1992. Third-party Visitation in Wisconsin. Herman & Cooper. Wis. Law. Mar. 2001. Surviving Michels: Can Third-party Visitation Be Resurrected? Krimmer. Wis. Law. Oct. 2019.