Wisconsin Law Journal – WI Legal News & Resources Wisconsin Legal News & Resources

Recently, a default divorce hearing fell through because the judge in the case had the temerity to ask a party whether she thought the proposed settlement was fair.

Although I consider myself a movie buff, I typically dislike movies about lawyers and the legal system. For example, although Paul Newman (a great actor) was nominated for the Academy Award for playing a lawyer in “The Verdict”, I found the movie irritating (at best). Apparently, the rules against ex parte contact with the court were unknown to the script writers.

After a year of writing this column for the Wisconsin Law Journal, it is time to take a look back at the main issues for the year. This affords me the opportunity of taking another kick at such cats as seem to warrant another kick.

On Jan. 13, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the question of who can be friends with a judge – at least in the cyber world. The implications of the case may affect the use of ESM (Electronic Social Media) by judges and bring into play the adage “bad facts make bad law”.

The greatest change in the practice of family law in recent years has been the incredibly higher rate of resolution versus settlement.

Among the changes in the practice of family law over the years (and there have been many) none have been as significant as the transition of the practice from litigation focused to settlement focused.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court does not accept many family-law cases (the last one, other than one regarding grandparent visitation, was McReath v. McReath, 2011 WI 66, 335 Wis.2d.643, 789 N.W. 89 eight years ago).

It is rare enough that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides a family-law case (the last one of any significance was McReath eight years ago) and even more rare when the case involves issues of constitutional law. The court’s recent decision in Michels v. Kelsey, 2019 WI 57 also involves issues of the nature of family in our society and the effect of the legal system on families.

When it comes to employment choices, having a support obligation means that the good ol' USA is no longer a free country.

It’s not that the previous law on relocation was perfect, but the new version, while improving on certain aspects, violates what should be a principal tenet for legislation: Don’t adopt laws, at least parts of which, everyone is just going to ignore.

With a new legislative session underway, once again there are efforts to require Wisconsin family courts to order equal physical placement in every – or virtually every – case.

An interesting article recently appeared in the Wisconsin Lawyer concerning domestic abuse and child custody: Meuer, Gibart & Roach, “Domestic Abuse: Little Impact on Child Custody and Placement”, Wisconsin Lawyer, Vol. 91, No. 11 (December, 2018).

On Nov. 7, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a grandparent-visitation case, Michels v. Lyons, 2017AP1142. This case affords the Supreme Court an opportunity to affect the law in an important and highly emotional area. In the case, Jill Kelsey filed a petition to compel her son (the child’s father) and the mother to provide her with ...

With same-sex marriage now legal in 36 states -- and probably legal in all 50 after the U.S. Supreme Court rules next summer -- same-sex divorces will follow in due course.

It is common, where there are minor children, for a divorce agreement to require at least the payor of child support and sometimes both parties to maintain life insurance with the children as beneficiaries.

If you tell the child’s other parent where you intend to move the child, permission to remove is specific to that location. The removing parent doesn’t have carte blanche to move wherever he or she chooses.

Gray areas are seldom helpful in family law, as divorced parties benefit by definition.

In a recent opinion the District 4 Court of Appeals misapplied Wisconsin statutes regarding the meaning of joint custody.

Everyone agrees that protecting children is a primary goal of our family law system. The difficulty is defining what is truly “best” for children, in order to achieve their best interests.

Now that we’re in the thick of winter and as Oscar season approaches, thoughts turn to spending some time at the warm local cinema for diversion.

So-called "constituent bills" are rather common in the family law field. They are introduced by legislators who want campaign contributions and don't like to say "no" to anyone who gives them.

At this time of year, it’s common to see “wish lists” for various people or groups. That got me thinking (a dangerous, if rare, thing) of what “wish list” could be devised for those in the family law field.

A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals case in a mental commitment action may have significant implications for post-judgment modification cases in family law in this state.

The statutes regarding post-judgment modification and removal are confusing. And unfortunately, a recent Court of Appeals decision makes them even more so.

Prenuptial agreements designed to govern a future divorce are strange animals.

I remember learning on the first day of law school that “bad facts make bad law.”

Apparently our state Supreme Court does recognize, after all, the rights of people to privately agree on their own affairs.

It is time for Wisconsin to reconsider the law regarding contingent placement orders.

Perhaps the two most common questions I am asked by people who learn that I am a divorce lawyer are: “What causes most of the divorces I handle?” and “How can I prevent becoming one of your clients?”

One of the delights of attending a bar association meeting is seeing new places.