Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Guardianship – Custody

By: Derek Hawkins//September 30, 2015//

Guardianship – Custody

By: Derek Hawkins//September 30, 2015//

Listen to this article

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.

Full Text


Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests