2025 - 2026 LEGISLATURE
LRB-2146/1
SWB:cdc
March 27, 2025 - Introduced by Senator Wimberger, cosponsored by Representatives Mursau, Armstrong, Behnke, Brooks, Dallman, Knodl, Kreibich, O'Connor, Piwowarczyk and Steffen. Referred to Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and Families.
SB161,1,3
1An Act to amend 767.41 (4) (a) 2.; to create 767.41 (5) (am) 5m. of the statutes; 2relating to: a presumption that equalizing physical placement to the highest
3degree is in the child’s best interest. Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, a court must set a physical placement schedule in an action affecting the family that allows a child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement and that maximizes the amount of time for a child with each parent and that is based on the best interest of the child. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Landwehr v. Landwehr, 2006 WI 64, 291 Wis. 2d 49, 715 N.W.2d 180, has stated that this standard does not require equal placement for a child with both parents.
This bill removes the current standard for determining a physical placement schedule and instead creates a presumption that equal placement of a child with both parents is in the child’s best interest. The presumption is rebutted if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, after considering all of the statutory best-interest factors, that equalizing physical placement time between parents would not be in a child’s best interest.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SB161,1
1Section 1. 767.41 (4) (a) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: SB161,2,122767.41 (4) (a) 2. In determining the allocation of periods of physical 3placement, the court shall consider each case on the basis of the factors in sub. (5) 4(am), subject to sub. (5) (bm). The court shall set presume that a placement 5schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of 6physical placement with each parent and that maximizes equalizes to the highest 7degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into 8account geographic separation and accommodations for different households is in 9the best interest of the child. The presumption under this subdivision is rebutted if 10the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, after considering all of the 11factors in sub. (5) (am), subject to sub. (5) (bm), that equalizing physical placement 12to the highest degree is not in the child’s best interest. SB161,213Section 2. 767.41 (5) (am) 5m. of the statutes is created to read: SB161,2,1414767.41 (5) (am) 5m. The geographic separation of the parties. SB161,315Section 3. Initial applicability. SB161,2,1716(1) This act first applies to actions or proceedings that are commenced on the 17effective date of this subsection.
