Wisconsin: Court of Appeals holds that mother’s arguments for challenging a placement change are moot. BY: Kristen J.

Link to the case

http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=soronen+v+soronen+342+Wis2d.250&rs=WLW13.01&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=Westlaw

Title: Wisconsin: Court of Appeals holds that mother’s arguments for challenging a placement change are moot.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the placement change in favor of the father was not erroneously made, and that the mother had no grounds for challenging the change in Soronen v. Soronen, No. 01-AP-1237 2012 WL 1605353 (Wis. App. May 09, 2012).

During a divorce action, the parent’s stipulated to a custody and placement arrangement regarding their minor children. The arrangement was in place for over five years when the father petitioned the court for a change in placement. The stipulated agreement that was ordered held that the mother was to have primary placement and the father was to receive one weeknight and every other weekend.

The father filed the motion for change after the children’s caretaker was arrested while driving while under the influence of illegal drugs. Further investigation showed that the caretaker was a habitual, know user, and the mother still relied upon her to care for her children. The father alleged in his petition, and filed affidavits, that the mother and her live in boyfriend were using drugs, trafficking drugs, and the minor children’s safety was in danger. The court ordered an ex parte that granted the father sole physical placement of the children, a guardian ad litem, and a scheduled hearing on the matter.

The mother disputed the allegations, filed for an ex parte motion and provided negative drug test on her own will to show the grounds for the allegations had no standing and that the children be returned to her care. Following this new ex parte motion filed by the mother, the father responded with further affidavits showing that the children were doing poorly in school.

The Guardian ad litem indicated that there was no evidence of drug use, trafficking, or other abuse in the home of the mother. She also noted that there was marijuana concern at the father’s house. Through her investigation she state that nether parent was very involved in the schooling of their children and recommended shared placement.

The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for a de novo review and did not amend the changes at that time.  The hearings spanned through 2010 and into early 2011 when the court finally ordered that it was in the best interest of the children to remain in the primary care of their father and the mother was awarded placement every other week from Thursday to Sunday. Over the summer break, the roles would switch and the mother would have primary care of the children and the father would take the Thursday to Sunday placement. The court granted sole medical care decisions of one of the minor children to the father and shared the decision with the other.

The court held that the mother’s lack of discipline, awareness, and presence in her children’s life were causing the children to suffer in school. During the hearing process, the education level of the children improved significantly.

The mother appealed on the grounds that there was not sufficient evidence to prove a substantial change in circumstances that rendered such a change in their placement. The original placement order was stipulated when the mother was not delegating her responsibilities to another, let alone a known drug user, the children were not of school age, the differences in parenting styles, and before the minor child exhibited signs of ADHA (which the mother persistently denies). With all of these circumstances, the court denied this allegation, as found that the father met his burden of proof to show that the circumstances were substantially changed.  

The mother also argued that the court erred when determining the best interest of her children. Again, the court denied the allegation stating that the findings with the education itself was warranted to show that the children were doing better, and that at this point in their life they need the regime and discipline that has not been provided by the mother.

The mother brought up the fact of expired restraining orders against the father, to attempt to show that since there had been no further incidences that it was not meaningful.

The court deemed the rest of her arguments as moot, having no meaning or relevance, to the issue and affirmed the circuit courts determination of placement.