The services of Anderson & Anderson Law Office, S.C. have been deemed an “Essential Service” and therefore we will remain open during the safe-at-home policy. 

One of the biggest casualties of the COVID-19 (Corona Virus) has been job losses as a result of mandatory closings and safe-at-home policies.  This can present substantial problems for payors of both child support and maintenance orders.  These support orders are typically fixed dollar orders based upon the payor’s income.  If the payors income has gone down through no fault of their own, the orders may be subject to modification under Wis. Stat. § 767.59.  This includes both child support and maintenance orders.  It is important to note, however, that Wis. Stat. § 767.59(1)(m) states:

In an action to revise a judgment or order with respect to child support, maintenance, or family support, the court may not revise child support, maintenance, or family support due, or an amount of arrearages, in child support, maintenance payments, or family support payments, that has accrued, prior to the date that notice of the action is given to the Respondent except to correct previous errors and calculations.

This means time is of the essence to file a motion to modify support in the event of a substantial loss of income.  The court cannot go backwards to revise a support order.  The longer the wait, the bigger the arrearage which the court cannot reverse retroactively.  The court can only modify support as of the date of service of motion to the payee. 
  
Our office has decided to offer a reduced retainer fee to file motions to modify support obligations during the safe-at-home policy and COVID-19 quarantine.  If you have lost your job as a result of COVID-19, and have a support obligation you are afraid you can no longer meet, contact our office to speak with one of our attorneys.  Our office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm.  We can be reached by calling (262) 654-0999. 

Seven Guidelines for Parents Who Are Divorce/Separated and Sharing Custody of Children During the COVID19 Pandemic
​
1. BE HEALTHY.
Comply with all CDC and local and state guidelines and model good behavior for your children with intensive hand washing, wiping down surfaces and other objects that are frequently touched, and maintaining social distancing. This also means BE INFORMED. Stay in touch with the most reliable media sources and avoid the rumor mill on social media.

2. BE MINDFUL.
Be honest about the seriousness of the pandemic but maintain a calm attitude and convey to your children your belief that everything will return to normal in time. Avoid making careless comments in front of the children and exposing them to endless media coverage intended for adults. Don’t leave the news on 24/7, for instance. But, at the same time, encourage your children to ask questions and express their concerns and answer them truthfully at a level that is age-appropriate. 

3. BE COMPLIANT with court orders and custody agreements.
As much as possible, try to avoid reinventing the wheel despite the unusual circumstances. The custody agreement or court order exists to prevent endless haggling over the details of timesharing. In some jurisdictions there are even standing orders mandating that, if schools are closed, custody agreements should remain in force as though school were still in session.

4. BE CREATIVE.
At the same time, it would be foolish to expect that nothing will change when people are being advised not to fly and vacation attractions such as amusement parks, museums and entertainment venues are closing all over the US and the world. In addition, some parents will have to work extra hours to help deal with the crisis and other parents may be out of work or working reduced hours for a time. Plans will inevitably have to change. Encourage closeness with the parent who is not going to see the child through shared books, movies, games and FaceTime or Skype.
 
5. BE TRANSPARENT.
Provide honest information to your co-parent about any suspected or confirmed exposure to the virus, and try to agree on what steps each of you will take to protect the child from exposure. Certainly both parents should be informed at once if the child is exhibiting any possible symptoms of the virus.

6. BE GENEROUS.
Try to provide makeup time to the parent who missed out, if at all possible. Family law judges expect reasonable accommodations when they can be made and will take seriously concerns raised in later filings about parents who are inflexible in highly unusual circumstances.

7. BE UNDERSTANDING.
There is no doubt that the pandemic will pose an economic hardship and lead to lost earnings for many, many parents, both those who are paying child support and those who are receiving child support. The parent who is paying should try to provide something, even if it can’t be the full amount. The parent who is receiving payments should try to be accommodating under these challenging and temporary circumstances.
Adversity can become an opportunity for parents to come together and focus on what is best for the child. For many children, the strange days of the pandemic will leave vivid memories. It’s important for every child to know and remember that both parents did everything they could to explain what was happening and to keep their child safe.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | 6525 Grand Teton Plaza, Madison, WI 53719

Kenosha County Circuit Court has issued a temporary emergency procedure and directions for the Court during the next several weeks in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Governor Evers, Kenosha County, and the City of Kenosha have declared a public health emergency.   The below guidelines were issued by Kenosha County Circuit Court as of March 16, 2020.  

1. All contested matters requiring in-person appearances including court trials, contested custody and placement hearings, any hearing where evidence will be taken by other than telephonic means and all mediation matters are suspended until after April 3, 2020, or until further Order of the Court. Clerks in individual branches will schedule these proceedings as the Court's calendar permits. Contact the individual branch for direction if the parties wish to have evidentiary hearings by phone. It will be left to the discretion of the Judge or Court Commissioner to do so.
2. Any hearing that can be done by phone will proceed as scheduled, including but not limited to, scheduling conferences, status conferences, motion hearings. All others will be rescheduled by the Court.
3. All Paternity, Child Support Establishment, Enforcement and Contempt Hearings are suspended until after April 3 2020. The Court will provide notice to the parties.
4. All petitions for Domestic Violence Injunctions, Child Abuse Injunctions, Harassment Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders shall be heard as scheduled in person or by telephone at the discretion of the Court.
5. All stipulated divorces shall be adjourned until after April 3, 2020, or until further Order of this Court.
6. All Parent Education Classes are cancelled until May 15, 2020 until further Order of the Court. Parties will be notified of the new date by the Court. 

​Our office will be contacting you directly if your case will be affected by the temporary emergency procedures. If you have any questions, please contact our office to discuss with your Attorney. 

Do you have a question about grandparent visitation rights?  The attorneys at Anderson & Anderson have years of experience and use that vast experience to fight for the best interest of their clients and the clients' children.  Call to schedule a consultation (262) 654-0999.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled against a grandmother who wanted more visitation time with her granddaughter, concluding grandma did not overcome a presumption that favors parental decisions concerning their kids.Cacie Michels and Keaton Lyons had a daughter together in 2009. They were never married and split up in 2011. As an infant and toddler, their daughter spent significant time with her grandmother, Jill Kelsey (Lyons’ mother), but the arrangement changed.

In 2015, the parents denied Kelsey’s request to take her granddaughter to Disney World and began limiting her visitation time, citing Kelsey’s questionable supervision.
For instance, Kelsey allowed her granddaughter to ride a horse without a helmet and gave her a sip of alcohol. Kelsey intervened in a paternity action and sought additional visitation under Wisconsin’s grandparent visitation statute, Wis. Stat. section 767.43(3).

That statute says “[t]he court may grant reasonable visitation rights, with respect to a child, to a grandparent of the child if the child’s parents” are not married and the grandparent seeking visitation is a parent of the child’s father.
Additionally, the court must be satisfied that the grandparent “has maintained a relationship with the child or 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.”

The circuit court sided with Kelsey, ordering visitation rights at least one Sunday per month and allowed a seven-day vacation period during summer breaks. The parents moved for reconsideration on due process grounds, but the motion was denied.

The Wisconsin Appeals Court certified the case for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And in Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57 (May 24, 2019), the unanimous court vacated the circuit court’s order, concluding it violated the parent’s constitutional rights.

The court, in a majority opinion by Justice Rebecca Dallet, concluded that the grandparent visitation statute is facially constitutional. Four other justices agreed.

But the majority also ruled the statute “is unconstitutional as applied because Kelsey did not overcome the presumption in favor of Lyons and Michels’ visitation decision with clear and convincing evidence that their decision is not in [their child’s] best interest.”

Justice Dallet explained that parents have a “fundamental liberty interest” in the care and upbringing of their children and the circuit court infringed on this fundamental right when it ordered more visitation rights to Kelsey, despite the parents’ objection.

“We conclude that because the Grandparent Visitation Statute directly and substantially implicates a fit parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and upbringing of his or her child, it is subject to strict scrutiny review,” Justice Dallet wrote.

Visitation statutes, the majority opinion explained, exist to allow relatives to petition for visitation when a family unit is dissolving and maintaining continuity would be in the best interest of the child. Clear and convincing evidence must support the argument. That is, a grandparent must show the parents’ decision is not in the child’s best interest.
The majority said Kelsey did not present clear and convincing evidence that overruling the parents’ decision regarding visitation would not be in their child’s best interest. The majority noted that the parents did not intend to eliminate Kelsey’s visitation rights.

“Kelsey’s desire to merely secure a more generous and predictable visitation schedule is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of Lyons and Michel’s visitation decision and demonstrate that their decision is not in [their child’s] best interest.”

“A circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent even if it disagrees with the parent’s decisions,” Justice Dallet wrote.

Concurrence
Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Daniel Kelly. They agreed that the Grandparent Visitation Statute, and the circuit court’s order, was unconstitutional as-applied to the parenting decisions of Michels and Lyons.

But the concurring justices also argued that the visitation statute is facially unconstitutional and should not be allowed to stand at all.

“Because the majority upholds the constitutionality of § 767.43(3), except as applied to parents in this particular case, fit parents’ fundamental liberty interest in raising their children free from governmental interference remains at risk,” Justice R. Bradley wrote.

Effective April 5th 2018, Wisconsin has passed 2017 Wisconsin Act 203 (Act).  This Act repealed, amended, and created new law relating to relocating with a child who is subject of a legal custody or physical placement order.  This new Act does make noticeable changes to the child removal statute. 

Under Wis. Stat. 767.481, removal laws applied when one parent intended to establish a residence with a minor child outside of the state of Wisconsin or more than 150 miles within the state from the residence of the other party.  The new Act applies the removal statutes when a parent intends to relocate and establish a residence with a minor child more than 100 miles away from the residence of the other party. 

The legal process of moving with a minor child 100 miles away has also dramatically changed.  Gone are the days of mailing notice of the intent to move and allowing for an objection period as stated under the previous removal statutes.  Now if a parent intends to move, the parent shall file a formal motion with the court seeking permission for the child’s relocation.  This motion shall include several things: a relocation plan stating the date of the proposed relocation, the municipality and state of the proposed new residence, the reason for the relocation, a proposed new placement schedule if applicable, and the proposed responsibility for the costs for each parent for transportation of the minor child.  The motion shall also include a request for a change in legal custody if applicable. 

If the non-moving parent objects to the move, he/she must file and serve, no later than five days before the initial hearing, an objection to the relocation and any alternate proposal, including a modification of physical placement or legal custody. 

There are also new legal standards for deciding relocation motions.  The court will still consider each of the custody and placement factors under Wis. Stat. 767.41(5); however, now the court shall approve the proposed relocation if the proposed relocation only minimally changes or affects the current placement schedule or does not affect or change the current placement schedule.  There is also now a presumption that the court should approve the plan of the parent proposing the relocation if the court determines that the objecting parent has not significantly exercised placement.  The movant bears the burden of proof in a contested relocation motion.  If the presumption to approve the plan exists, then the parent objecting to the relocation shall have the burden of proof in demonstrating the proposed relocation is not in the child’s best interest. 

Matters relating to children can be very emotional.  A skilled and experienced attorney, such as the lawyers at Anderson & Anderson Law Office, S.C., can help you through the difficulties of such matters.  If you have questions regarding how the new child removal act affects your case, please contact our office and schedule an appointment with one of our skilled family law attorneys. 

To see the entire 2017 Wisconsin Act 203, please follow this link:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/related/acts/203

INTRODUCTION:
Many of our clients either are on the receiving end of a maintenance payment or on the paying end of a maintenance payment.  Maintenance (spousal support / alimony) is payment from one spouse to the other to help lower the financial stress commonly associated with a divorce.   It is designed to help assist the more financially dependent spouse.  Either spouse may request maintenance from the other regardless of what caused the breakdown of the marriage.  A court can order maintenance payments for a temporary period of time or for an indefinite period of time after considering a number of statutory factors including the length of the marriage, the age and physical and emotional health of the parties, the division of property, the education level of each party, the earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, the feasibility that the party seeking maintenance can become self-supporting, any mutual agreement made before the marriage, contributions to education, etc.  All the factors the court considers when determining a maintenance obligation can be found in the Wisconsin State Statute § 767.56. 

What made maintenance unique, as opposed to Child Support, are the tax ramifications associated with paying maintenance or receiving maintenance.  If a person has paid amounts of maintenance, that payer may deduct from income the amount of maintenance paid. The recipient of maintenance payments must include it in his/her income. 

This unique feature of maintenance has now completely changed under the new 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Act).  This new Act has created some of the most sweeping changes to tax law in more than thirty years.  Many of the changes imposed by the new Act affects the practice of family law, and more specifically maintenance.   

MAINTENANCE PAYMENT DEDUCTION ELIMINATED:
The Act has eliminated the maintenance deduction for payments under a divorce or separation decree.  This new tax provision applies only to payments that are ordered in a divorce or separation degree on or after December 31, 2018.  If a client is ordered to pay maintenance under a divorce of separation decree before December 31, 2018, you are grandfathered into the former tax law which permits deductions of maintenance payments. 

The former spouse who is receiving the maintenance payment will no longer include the receipt of maintenance payments under income and will not be taxed on the income of maintenance like before.  The same December 31, 2018, starting date applies to the reporting of maintenance income.  You are grandfather into the former tax law if a maintenance order under a divorce or separation decree is made before December 31, 2018.  Any maintenance order after that date will fall under the new tax law. 

The Act’s treatment of maintenance payments not only applies to those payments ordered under a divorce or separation decree on or before December 31, 2018.  It applies to any maintenance payment modified after the December 31, 2018, starting date if the modification order expressly states that the Act’s new maintenance provision applies (not deductible by the payer and not taxed as income to the payee). 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR CASE?
This new tax law has imposed major changes to those individuals going through a divorce.  It is important to speak with an attorney to discuss maintenance and to see whether there could be a maintenance issue in your specific case.  Because there is no specific calculation for determining maintenance, the skilled attorneys at Anderson & Anderson will provide the best advice for your specific situation.

What you may see is a push for cases to be tried or come to a settlement agreement before the start date of the new maintenance tax laws. 

If you have questions about your case and whether the new Act will affect it, contact your attorney at Anderson & Anderson Law Office, S.C.

 Get your votes in now for Best of Kenosha County 2017! Voting ends September 24th! Thank you for taking Anderson & Anderson Law Office, S.C. this far! We appreciate all of the votes and feedback.
Visit: KenoshaNews.com/BestofKenosha or http://bit.ly/2wYj21E