99-3328-CR State v. Oakley

Listen to this article

“Even though the motion for reconsideration is denied, we find it appropriate now to withdraw the following language from the third sentence in paragraph 3, ‘-where one of the victims was his own child’, and the following language from the third sentence in paragraph 14: ‘his own child and’. Justice William A. Bablitch withdraws the sixth sentence in paragraph 33 from his concurrence: ‘He has abused at least one of them.'”

“To the extent the majority opinion requires clarification, we emphasize that the holding was based on extraordinary circumstances. The facts presented to this court demonstrate that this case is not about a person’s inability to pay child support. Rather, the exceptional circumstances outlined show an intentional unwillingness to pay child support by a man with a prior criminal record. The exceptional circumstances of this case include, among other things, that Oakley was in arrears in support of his nine children in excess of $25,000.00, and that Oakley had three convictions, and four read-ins, for intentional refusal to pay child support, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.22. Under such circumstances, the probation condition is not overbroad. Furthermore, the probation condition is reasonably related to the goal of rehabilitation, and is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest in requiring parents to support their children.”

Motion for reconsideration denied.

CONCURRING OPINION: Abrahamson, C.J. “I would deny the motion for reconsideration, but I conclude that the per curiam opinion fails to state or consider significant facts.

The per curiam opinion should apply the majority’s holding, considering Oakley’s record of making support payments as well as his record of not making support payments.”

Motion for reconsideration, Per Curiam