By: Derek Hawkins//September 30, 2015//
Civil
WI Court of Appeals – District III
Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz, J., and Thomas Cane, Reserve Judge.
Guardianship – Custody
2014AP2429; 2014AP2428 Susan Frederick v. Andrew Clay
These cases involve the untimely deaths of the parents of two minor children, C.S. and M.S., a circumstance that has led to significant conflict among surviving family members about the children’s rearing. Susan Frederick is the children’s maternal grandmother. After her son-in-law’s and daughter’s deaths only a few years apart, Frederick filed petitions for guardianship of C.S. and M.S. The children’s maternal grandfather, Andrew Clay, and their paternal grandmother, Janice S., also filed guardianship petitions and, in the alternative, sought visitation rights to the children pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 54.56. After a three-day trial, the circuit court appointed Frederick guardian, but ordered more visitation, or less restrictive visitation, with Janice and Clay than Frederick wanted. Frederick appeals, arguing the “expansive” visitation orders entered in these cases were contrary to both the United States Constitution and provisions within WIS. STAT. ch. 54. Frederick contends that all of these authorities require that her opinions as guardian, as well as the opinions of the children’s deceased mother as testified to by others at trial, regarding visitation be given presumptive force. Frederick also argues the circuit court exceeded its statutory authority to order “reasonable visitation” and erroneously exercised its discretion by ordering unsupervised, overnight visitation with Clay. We need not decide whether the circuit court was required to presume Frederick’s visitation proposal was in the children’s best interests. Regardless of whether such a requirement exists, the court applied such a presumption in these cases, because it followed the procedure proposed by Frederick’s attorney, and because it clearly used Frederick’s visitation proposal as the template for its ultimate visitation determinations. We further conclude the circuit court did not exceed its statutory authority by entering the visitation orders at issue, nor did the court erroneously exercise its discretion with respect to Clay’s visitation. Accordingly, we affirm.
Decision
Affirmed. Per Curiam.