Constitutional Law — caregiver law — constitutionality

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Constitutional Law — caregiver law — constitutionality

Wisconsin’s new caregiver law, 2009 Wis. Act 76, is not unconstitutional.

“We conclude that Brown’s equal protection claim fails because the new childcare law does pass the rational basis test. Regardless of whether the law is rationally related to the goal of protecting children, the law is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of prohibiting individuals who dishonestly benefitted from government welfare in the past from obtaining government funding in the form of childcare subsidies. First, as the Department and the Division note, Brown also misstates the consequences of having a conviction barring her from licensure under WIS. STAT. § 48.685(5). (2009-10). As the Department and the Division point out, it is not true that she is barred from ever again providing childcare. Instead, Brown remains free to provide childcare for children under terms not subject to WIS. STAT. § 48.65 (2009-10). That is to say, she can continue to provide childcare for less than four children or provide child care for children over the age of seven. Second, we agree with the Department and the Division that the barring of individuals convicted of crimes involving fraudulent use of funds from enumerated government programs is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in preventing further fraud to the Wisconsin Shares program. The State has a legitimate interest in not providing taxpayer funds to those who have previously defrauded the government. For this reason, neither the law nor the classifications imposed by it are arbitrary. Although Brown is undoubtedly correct in highlighting the harshness of the new law, we must keep in mind that legislative perfection ‘“is neither possible nor necessary.”’ See Aicher, 237 Wis. 2d 99, ¶57 (citation omitted); see also Metropolitan Assoc., 332 Wis. 2d 85, ¶61 (‘Any doubts must be resolved in favor of the reasonableness of the classification.’). In sum, Brown has ‘not negate[d] every conceivable basis which might support’ the new childcare law, see Heller, 509 U.S. at 320, and we must conclude that it does not violate her right to equal protection.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP1350 Brown v. DCF

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, White, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kastner, Jill M., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Burke, Mary E., Madison