Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Ellen Wall Payne, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Phillip Charles Brande, Respondent-Appellant. BY: Kayla K.

Link for the opinion: http://web2.westlaw.com/result/default.wl?cfid=1&mt=LawSchool&origin=Search&sri=58%2c59%2c71%2c73&sskey=CLID_SSSA9789739531913&query=Child+Custody+in+Wisconsin&method=WIN&db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cAMJUR%2cALR&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT8159940531913&rltdb=CLID_DB1888139531913&service=Search&eq=Welcome%2fLawSchool&rp=%2fWelcome%2fLawSchool%2fdefault.wl&srch=TRUE&vr=2.0&action=Search&sv=Split&fmqv=s&fn=_top&utid=1&rs=WLW13.01

Title:  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Ellen Wall Payne, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Phillip Charles Brande, Respondent-Appellant.

Payne and Brande got married in North Carolina in 1986.  During their marriage, they had one child named Michael.  Michael was born on November 2, 1988.  In February of 1992, Payne and Brande separated and they were divorced in 1993.  Their son Michael continued to live with Payne, but he would visit is father Brande and have overnight stays with him.

Payne got remarried to a Wisconsin resident on August 30, 1996.  Payne filed a petition four days later in Wisconsin seeking sole legal custody, primary physical placement of her son Michael, and child support from Brande.

Brande received a North Carolina temporary ex parte order that granted him an immediate temporary custody of their son Michael.  Soon after, Brande  filed a motion to dismiss his ex-wife, Payne’s Wisconsin petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The Wisconsin court and the North Carolina court both had jurisdiction to make a custody determination.  Both parties then would participate in a conference call during the hearing.  Sole custody and physical placement of Michael to Payne by the Wisconsin court and order Brande to pay child support.

Brande claims that the trial court cannot make a custody determination due to lack of jurisdiction.  Brande argued that the Wisconsin court did not have jurisdiction under §822.03(1)(a) because Michael’s home state is North Carolina.

Payne states that Michael has a significant connection to Wisconsin because of her and her husband whom is Michael’s step-father.  Brande does not respond further in the argument.

The court agreed with Payne that the trail court had jurisdiction to make the custody determination.