Matters relating to visitation are committed to the discretion of the trial court. It is then the trial court's duty to enforce this position. J.R.G., 141 Wis.2d 503, 507, 415 N.W.2d 564, 566 (Ct. App. The mother in Lange was the sole legal guardian and her choice of religion was the Lutheran church. He must show how a restrictive order is reasonably necessary in *227 order to protect his choice of religion for the children. v. Here, the children continue to be practicing Mormons. Daniel P. Anderson, DeHahn recognizes that the issue is one of statutory interpretation. . If not, you may need to refresh the page. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. He argues that the trial court is not competent to decide such questions.
She correctly cites § 767.01(1), STATS., which gives circuit courts "authority to do all acts . 1997), 96-3642. See id. The procedural disposition (e.g. 1993), is a study in contrast. On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Debra J. Patterson of Kasen and Patterson, S.C. of Wauwatosa. After DeHahn and Wood were divorced in 1991, DeHahn was awarded sole legal custody of their two minor children. 1997), 96-3642. 1987). Thus, as a matter of common sense, a court cannot be competent to decide what actions are consistent or not consistent with a religious choice; the legal custodian makes that call. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Wood v. DeHahn, 214 Wis. 2d 221, 571 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. We begin by nothing that DeHahn is correct when he observes that as the parent having sole legal custody, he has the exclusive right to choose the religion for the children. DeHahn reads the statutes to therefore give him, not the trial court, the right to decide whether an action by his former spouse is inconsistent with the way he is raising the children regarding religion, and the trial court's job is to enforce his decision unless it is found harmful to the children. The operation could not be completed. at 381, 502 N.W.2d at 146-47. 767.41 Annotation A custodial parent's right to make major decisions for the children does not give that parent the right to decide whether the actions of the noncustodial parent are consistent with those decisions. Precedential, Citations:

Neil Nettesheim, Judges: See id. See § 767.001(2), (2m), STATS. See id. We also maintain an archive of Opinion Summaries from September 2000 to the Present. But DeHahn argues that we should not rely upon §§ 767.01(1) and 767.24(1), STATS., because they only speak generally to the court's responsibility and have no relevancy to the question at hand. Cancel anytime. We briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks.

See id. In DeHahn's view, he not only has the power to decide what religion the children shall be brought up with, but he also has the unfettered right to manage that choice absent a showing of harm. DeHahn is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, and is raising the two children as Mormons. He essentially argues that how a legal custodian inculcates his or her children in religion is a subjective, not objective, determination. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. But DeHahn argues that we should not rely upon §§ 767.01(1) and 767.24(1), STATS., because they only speak generally to the court's responsibility and have no relevancy to the question at hand. He must convince the court that the action of going to another church cannot stand together with his authority to choose one religion over another religion. Wood took the children to Catholic services on Christmas, Easter, and Mother’s Day. Lange v. Lange, 175 Wis.2d 373,502, N.W.2d 143 (Ct. App. at 382,502 N.W.2d at 147. Here, the children continue to be practicing Mormons. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. After DeHahn and Wood were divorced in 1991, DeHahn was awarded sole legal custody of their two *223 minor children. Matters relating to visitation are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See id. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. at 382,502 N.W.2d at 147. ). See id. Wood, as … The trial court restricted the father's visitation rights in order to protect the mother's choice of religion. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again.
You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. The claimant was attending Doncaster races, when he was removed from the racecourse by the defendant. DeHahn asserts that he initially determines whether the legal custodian has the right to decide what is consistent. As the moving party, he has that burden. We begin by nothing that DeHahn is correct when he observes that as the parent having sole legal custody, he has the exclusive right to choose the religion for the children. October 15th, 1997, Precedential Status: The court made a "reasonableness" determination that going to a church service three times a year was not contrary to the children's religious upbringing in the Mormon faith. In DeHahn's view, he not only has the power to decide what religion the children shall be brought up with, but he also has the unfettered right to manage that choice absent a showing of harm. All the terms at issue, "consistent," "necessary" and "reasonable," are part of the same equation and it is the trial court's statutory responsibility to choose among a variety of possible inferences and then choose among a variety of responses. FindLaw offers a free RSS feed for this court. He has failed to meet his burden.

Read more about Quimbee. DeHahn is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, and is raising the two children as Mormons. That is the essential hallmark of what we term 'judicial discretion.". Wisconsin Court of Appeals Cases. Wood took the children to Catholic services on Christmas, Easter, and Mother’s Day. Thus, as a matter of common sense, a court cannot be competent to decide what actions are consistent or not consistent with a religious choice; the legal custodian makes that call. The trial court found that Wood was not acting in a manner inconsistent with DeHahn’s choice of religion for the children and denied the motion. 767.41 Annotation Neither sub. Wood, as … See G.R.S. After DeHahn and Wood were divorced in 1991, DeHahn was awarded sole legal custody of their two minor children. Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838. As the legal guardian, DeHahn was entitled to choose the children’s religion, and Wood was required to act in a manner consistent with that choice. DeHahn notes that our statutes give him, as legal custodian of the children, the right to make all major decisions concerning the children's upbringing, including religion. On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of.

Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Opinion Filed: October 15, 1997 Submitted on Briefs: August 29, 1997 JUDGES: Brown, Nettesheim and Anderson, JJ. He must show how a restrictive order is reasonably necessary in order to protect his choice of religion for the children. He essentially argues that how a legal custodian inculcates his or her children in religion is a subjective, not objective, determination. DeHahn notes that our statutes give him, as legal custodian of the children, the right to make all major decisions concerning the children's upbringing, including religion. Only then do §§ 767.01(1) and 767.24(1) come into play and only for the purpose of fashioning an order that is necessary and reasonable to enforce the legal custodian's determination. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and.