Mediation Documents in Judicial Proceedings: In re Paternity of Emily C.B
| Autor | Court of Appeals, District II, Wisconsin |
| Páginas | 187-190 |
R
R
Re
e
ev
v
vi
i
is
s
st
t
ta
a
a
L
L
La
a
at
t
ti
i
in
n
no
o
oa
a
am
m
me
e
er
r
ri
i
ic
c
ca
a
an
n
na
a
a
d
d
de
e
e
M
M
Me
e
ed
d
di
i
ia
a
ac
c
ci
i
ió
ó
ón
n
n
y
y
y
A
A
Ar
r
rb
b
bi
i
it
t
tr
r
ra
a
aj
j
je
e
e,
,
,
2
2
20
0
00
0
04
4
4,
,
,
N
N
Nú
ú
úm
m
me
e
er
r
ro
o
o
1
1
1
187
Mediation Documents in Judicial Proceedings: In re Paternity of Emily C.B.
Court of Appeals, District II, Wisconsin
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County: KATHRYN W. FOSTER,
Judge. Affirmed.
Before Anderson, P.J., Brown and Snyder, JJ.
1. PER CURIAM. David B. appeals from an order transferring primary placement of his
daughter, Emily C.B., to her mother, Stephanie C.S. He argues that there was insufficient change
of circumstances to support the modification of primary placement and that the circuit court
erroneously admitted evidence from a mediation session and records from David's treating
therapist. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's determination
and that there was no error in the admission of evidence. We affirm the order.
2. Emily was born January 2, 1997. On January 30, 1997, Emily was left in her father's care. A
stipulated judgment of paternity was entered
May6, 1998, providing for joint legal custody, primary placement with David, and periods of
alternate physical placement with Stephanie conditioned on the completion of an AODA
program, counseling, and the nonconsumption of drugs or alcohol during periods of placement.
3. On December 16, 1998, Stephanie filed a motion to modify placement and reopen the paternity
judgment. As grounds, she asserted that she was not previously represented by counsel, did not
understand the provision in the stipulation extending the application of Wis. Stat. §767.325(1)(a)
(2001-02)1 from two to eight years, and that the long travel distance made short periods of
placement impractical. Litigation of this and other motions continued over the next few years.
Although the stipulation's extension of the two-year period mandated by §767.325(1)(a) was
declared void as a violation of public policy, Stephanie's motion was never fully resolved by
order of the court.
4. On April 20, 2001, Stephanie moved to transfer primary physical placement to her under Wis.
Stat. §767.325(1)(b). After resolution of disputes regarding psychological exams, the matter was
tried over ten different days in February and March 2002. The circuit court found that David was
antagonistic and unbending towards Stephanie and would not support a healthy relationship
between daughter and mother. It found that relationship to be crucial and necessary to the child's
best interest and that placement with Stephanie would foster a healthy relationship with both
parents and provide predictability and stability for the child. The court ordered primary placement
transferred to Stephanie on a gradual schedule but completed in full by the beginning of the 2002
school year.
5. David's opening salvo is that Stephanie's December 1998 motion did not plead a basis for
reopening the judgment under Wis. Stat. §806.07 or for modification of placement within the first
two years under Wis. Stat. §767.325(1)(a). This argument has no place in this appeal because in
the circuit court the parties agreed that the posture of the case was to review placement after the
passage of more than two years. We need only be concerned with the application of
§767.325(1)(b) with respect to Stephanie's April 2001 motion for a change of primary placement.
6. To modify primary placement under Wis. Stat. §767.325(1)(b), two conditions must exist:
modification is in the best interest of the child and a substantial change in circumstances has
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba