On May 31, 2006, the governor signed the omnibus family bill which gets rid of the presumptions related to relocation of minor children out of state. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2007 and imposes on the parent seeking permission to move the child to demonstrate that the move would advance the child’s best interest.

Specifically, the new law, which goes into effect January, 2007, provides as follows:

Not unlike the present law, a parent cannot relocate of the state with a minor child unless that parent has:

(1) Consent of the other parent, if that parent has been given parenting time by an order or decree; or

(2) An order of the court allowing the relocation.

As a result, it is incumbent upon the parent seeking to relocate out of state to file a Motion and acquire and order allowing that relocation before doing so. A failure to follow this procedure creates a grave risk that dissenting parent may seek an ex parte order changing custody immediately pending a hearing on the issue.

If the matter proceeds to Court, the Judge may not allow the relocation if it is demonstrated that the purpose of the move is to interfere with parenting time given to the other parent by the decree. In the past when determining whether to allow a parent to relocate with the child, there was a presumption in favor of maintaining the present custodial arrangement. In other words, the custodial p[aren’t had the advantage and a presumption in his/her favor which often ended up with the court allowing the relocation.

The new law changes that analysis. The end result is that it will be far more difficult for a parent to relocate out of state and away from the other parent with a minor child. Under the new law, such determinations are made based on what is in the best interests of the child.

The factors the court must consider in determining the child's best interests include, but are not limited to:

(1) the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the person proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating person, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;

(2) the age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration special needs of the child;

(3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating person and the child through suitable parenting time arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;

(4) the child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;

(5) whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the person seeking the relocation either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating person;

(6) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of the life for both the custodial parent seeking the relocation and the child including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;

(7) the reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation; and

(8) the effect on the safety and welfare of the child, or of the parent requesting to move the child's residence, of domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01.

It is critical to note that the new statute places the burden of proof on the parent requesting to move the residence of the child to another state, except that if the court finds that the person requesting permission to move has been a victim of domestic abuse by the other parent, the burden of proof is upon the parent opposing the move.
 

In January 2006 a bill introduced by Rep. Andy Lamb, R-Menomonie, called the "Stephen Hubbard Law" was signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle.

The law requires that courts look at evidence of child abuse or neglect and the past criminal records of all members of a household before deciding custody of a child following a divorce of the child's parents.

The man who caused the death of 8-year old Stephen Hubbard of Hammond in December 2004 will spend 15 years in prison and will be on 10-years extended probation after that.

Kevin H. Rood was sentenced Thursday in St. Croix County Court after entering a plea of no contest on the charge of 2nd degree reckless homicide in February. In addition to his prison term and supervised release Rood will have to complete anger management and maintain absolute sobriety.

The original criminal complaint said the boy was taken to Baldwin Hospital after falling in the shower at his Hammond home. He was then airlifted to Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare. A medical examiner's report said Hubbard suffered from a number of soft tissue injuries, head trauma and brain hemorrhage.

Rood told investigators he spanked the boy for wetting his pants and pushed him against a wall on Dec. 20, 2004. He said Hubbard then took a shower and fell down.

On Dec. 21, Rood told investigators he had actually pushed the boy into the wall three times and spanked him 50 or 60 times over the 14 months he had been living with the boy's mother, Christine Dennis, court records said.

Medical records indicated Hubbard stood 3-foot-9 and weighed 50 pounds. Rood's height and weight at the time was 6-foot-3, 265.

Rood was initially charged with first-degree reckless homicide. Later three counts of child abuse with a high probability of great harm were added.

The three child abuse charges were dismissed and the reckless homicide charge was reduced from first to second-degree as part of a plea agreement.

At the time of the incident St. Croix County District Attorney Eric Johnson said that a pattern of abuse was being investigated.