Wisconsin Court Case: Custody of H.S.H.

In re the custody of H.S.H-K.: SANDRA LYNNE HOLTZMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ELSBETH KNOTT, Respondent-Respondent. 

No. 93-2911 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 

193 Wis. 2d 649; 533 N.W.2d 419

October 12, 1994, Oral Argument 

June 13, 1995, FILED 

COUNSEL:
For the petitioner-appellant there was a brief by Judith Sperling Newton, Carol M. Gapen and Stafford, Rosenbaum, Rieser & Hansen, Madison and oral argument by Judith S. Newton.

For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Charles Schutze, Kelly Kinzel and Schutze Law Offices, Madison and oral argument by Charles Schutze.

Guardian Ad Litem briefs were filed (in the Court of Appeals) by Linda S. Balisle and Balisle & Roberson, S.C., Madison and oral argument by Linda S. Balisle.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Shannon Wilber and Youth Law Center, San Francisco, CA; Marvin Ventrell and National Association of Counsel for Children, Denver CO and Joan Heifetz Hollinger, University of California, for the Youth Law Center and National Association of Counsel for Children. 

JUDGES:
Shirley S. Abrahamson, J. BABLITCH, J., HEFFERNAN, C.J., ABRAHAMSON AND GESKE, J.J., concur (opinion filed). DAY, J., concurs & dissents in part (opinion filed). STEINMETZ AND DAY, J.J., concurs & dissents in part (opinion filed). WILCOX, J. concurs & dissents in part (opinion filed) 

OPINIONBY:
Shirley S. Abrahamson 

Shirley S. Abrahamson, J. 
Sandra Lynne Holtzman appeals from an order of the circuit court for Dane county, George A.W. Northrup, circuit judge, dismissing her petition seeking custody of or visitation rights to H.S., the biological child of Elsbeth Knott. We granted the guardian ad litem's petition to bypass the court of appeals. Section (Rule) 809.60, Stats. 1991-92. We affirm that part of the order dismissing the petition for custody; we reverse that part of the order dismissing the petition for visitation rights and remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Two issues of law are presented in this case. The first issue is whether Holtzman's assertions of Knott's parental unfitness and inability to care for the child, or of compelling circumstances requiring a change of custody, are sufficient to proceed on a petition for custody under sec. 767.24(3), Stats. 1991-92. The second issue is whether Holtzman may seek visitation rights to the child. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
n1 The two questions of law arise in an appeal from an order granting Knott's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgments are governed by sec. 802.08, Stats. 1991-92, and this court reviews the circuit court's order for summary judgment by applying the same methodology as the circuit court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Rate this article     Low		High