Grandparent Visitation Petition

PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION

(Wisconsin — Wis. Stat. § 767.43)

I. PARTIES

1.1 Petitioner(s) — Grandparent(s)

Co-Petitioner (spouse / other grandparent), if applicable:

1.2 Respondent(s) — Parent(s) / Person with Custody

1.3 The Minor Child

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition under Wis. Stat. § 767.43.

2.2 UCCJEA home state. Wisconsin has jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Wis. Stat. ch. 822, because:

☐ Wisconsin is the child's home state — the child has lived in Wisconsin with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the filing of this Petition; or

☐ Wisconsin was the child's home state within six (6) months before filing and a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State; or

☐ Other basis: [____________]

2.3 Venue. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County because the minor child resides in this county and/or any related action affecting the family is pending in this Court.

2.4 Other proceedings.

☐ There are no other pending or prior proceedings concerning the custody, placement, or visitation of the minor child.

☐ There are other proceedings — Court: [____________]; Case No.: [____________]; Nature: [____________].

III. STANDING — Wis. Stat. § 767.43

3.1 Petitioner proceeds under (check the applicable route):

☐ § 767.43(1) — Petitioner is a grandparent / great-grandparent / stepparent / person who has maintained a relationship similar to a parent-child relationship with the child, and the parents have (or will receive) notice of the hearing.

☐ § 767.43(3) — Petitioner is a grandparent of a child whose parents were not married to each other when the child was born (paternity context). Paternity ☐ has been ☐ has not been adjudicated/acknowledged.

3.2 Relationship requirement — § 767.43(3). If proceeding under § 767.43(3), Petitioner alleges that (check all that apply):

☐ Petitioner has maintained a relationship with the child; or

☐ Petitioner has attempted to maintain a relationship with the child but has been prevented from doing so by a parent who has legal custody of the child.

☐ Petitioner is not likely to act in a manner contrary to decisions that are made by a parent who has legal custody of the child and that are related to the child's physical, emotional, educational, or spiritual welfare.

3.3 Supporting facts:

[____________________________________________________________]

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 History of the relationship. Petitioner has had a significant relationship with the minor child, as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.2 Denial or limitation of contact. Respondent(s) have denied or limited contact between Petitioner and the child, as follows, and the Respondent's stated reasons are:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.3 Why visitation is in the child's best interest. Notwithstanding the special weight owed to a fit parent's decision, Petitioner alleges that the parent's decision to deny or limit visitation is not in the child's best interest because:

[____________________________________________________________]

V. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

5.1 Special weight to a fit parent's decision (Troxel; Michels). Petitioner acknowledges that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and upbringing of their children, and that a fit parent's decision regarding visitation is entitled to special weight. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57.

5.2 Presumption and burden — Michels v. Lyons. Petitioner acknowledges there is a presumption that a fit parent's visitation decision is in the child's best interest. To obtain court-ordered visitation over a fit parent's objection, Petitioner must overcome that presumption by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the parent's decision is NOT in the child's best interest. Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, ¶¶ 1, 24–26.

5.3 No substitution of judgment. Petitioner acknowledges that the Court may not substitute its own judgment regarding visitation for that of a fit parent; the Court considers the nature and extent of grandparent visitation only after Petitioner overcomes the fit-parent presumption.

5.4 Best interest — § 767.43. If the presumption is overcome, the Court shall determine reasonable visitation consistent with the best interest of the child.

VI. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

6.1 Petitioner alleges, and is prepared to prove by clear and convincing evidence, that visitation is in the child's best interest, considering:

☐ The emotional ties and strength of the relationship between the child and Petitioner: [____________]

☐ The role Petitioner has played in the child's life (including any caregiving): [____________]

☐ Petitioner's willingness to support, not undermine, the custodial parent's decisions about the child's welfare (§ 767.43(3)): [____________]

☐ The effect of visitation on the child's relationship with the parent(s): [____________]

☐ Any history of abuse, neglect, or conduct by Petitioner harmful to the child: [____________]

☐ The child's wishes, if of sufficient age and maturity: [____________]

☐ Any other factor relevant to the child's best interest: [____________]

6.2 Supporting facts:

[____________________________________________________________]

VII. PROPOSED VISITATION SCHEDULE

7.1 Regular visitation. Petitioner requests:

☐ Weekly: [____________] ☐ Monthly: [____________] ☐ Other: [____________]

7.2 Holidays and special occasions.

7.3 Transportation / exchange. [____________]

7.4 Communication. Telephone/video contact: [____________]

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Find that Petitioner has standing under Wis. Stat. § 767.43 (☐ subsection (1) ☐ subsection (3));

B. Appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor child if the Court deems it appropriate;

C. Find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the fit-parent presumption is overcome because the parent's decision to deny or limit visitation is not in the child's best interest (Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57);

D. Enter an order awarding Petitioner reasonable visitation with the minor child pursuant to the schedule in Section VII, or as the Court deems just;

E. Award costs as permitted by law; and

F. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

IX. VERIFICATION

STATE OF WISCONSIN )
COUNTY OF [____________] )

I, [PETITIONER NAME], being first duly sworn, state that I am the Petitioner in this action; that I have read the foregoing Petition; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Petitioner

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of __________, 20___.

_________________________________
Notary Public, State of Wisconsin
My Commission Expires: ___________

X. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20___.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Pro Se
OR
_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], State Bar of Wisconsin No. [____________]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS] | [PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Petitioner

XI. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

TO THE RESPONDENT(S): A Petition for Grandparent Visitation under Wis. Stat. § 767.43 has been filed concerning your child. You are entitled to notice and a hearing. You may file a written response with the Clerk of Circuit Court and serve a copy on Petitioner or Petitioner's attorney before the deadline stated in the court papers. If you fail to respond, the Court may grant the relief requested in this Petition. You have the right to be represented by an attorney.

XII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition (and accompanying UCCJEA affidavit) was served upon each Respondent / parent by ☐ personal service ☐ certified mail ☐ service of process server ☐ other [____________], at the address(es) listed above.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER / ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• Wis. Stat. § 767.43 — visitation rights of certain persons: § 767.43(1) (grandparent/great-grandparent/stepparent/person with parent-like relationship; notice; best interest); § 767.43(3) (grandparent of a child of unmarried parents; maintained/attempted relationship; will not undermine custodial parent's decisions).
• Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486 — § 767.43(3) facially constitutional but unconstitutional as applied; grandparent must overcome the fit-parent presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's decision is not in the child's best interest; court may not substitute its judgment for a fit parent's.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — fit parent's decision entitled to special weight.
• Wis. Stat. § 54.56 — visitation for certain relatives where a parent is deceased (alternative route).
• Wis. Stat. § 48.925 — grandparent visitation following adoption (alternative route).
• Wis. Stat. ch. 822 — UCCJEA; § 822.29 (affidavit).

This Petition is a preparation aid only. Under Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, a Wisconsin grandparent must overcome the presumption favoring a fit parent's visitation decision by clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest, and the court may not substitute its judgment for a fit parent's — a high, constitutionally sensitive burden reinforced by Troxel v. Granville. Consult a licensed Wisconsin family law attorney before filing.