Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB151

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/25
• Refer: 4/2/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 767.41 (4) (a) 2.; to create 767.41 (5) (am) 5m. of the statutes; Relating to: a presumption that equalizing physical placement to the highest degree is in the child’s best interest.

Summary

AB151 would change Wisconsin’s child custody and placement law by creating a rebuttable presumption that equalizing physical placement between parents to the highest degree is in the child’s best interest. Under current law, courts must set a placement schedule that provides regularly occurring, meaningful periods with each parent and maximizes time with each parent based on the child’s best interest, but existing case law makes clear that equal placement is not required. This bill would replace that framework with a stronger starting assumption in favor of near-equal or equal placement. The presumption could still be overcome if a court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence and after considering the statutory best-interest factors, that equalizing placement would not serve the child’s best interest. The bill also adds geographic separation of the parents as an explicit best-interest factor and applies only to actions or proceedings commenced on the effective date. In practical terms, the bill would affect family court decisions under Wisconsin Statutes section 767.41 and could influence how judges evaluate parenting time disputes in divorce, legal separation, and other actions affecting the family.

Impact

AB151 would amend Wisconsin’s physical placement statute, section 767.41, by shifting the legal standard from maximizing placement time in a best-interest analysis to a rebuttable presumption favoring equalized placement. It would also add a new statutory best-interest factor addressing the geographic separation of the parties. The bill would affect parents, children, family court judges, and practitioners handling custody and placement disputes, while leaving room for judicial discretion when equal placement is not appropriate.

Sentiment

The bill appears to reflect a pro-shared-parenting policy preference, with its sponsors seeking to make equal or near-equal placement the default starting point in family court. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. The bill ultimately did not become law, as it failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the degree to which Wisconsin law should presume equal placement rather than simply require courts to maximize time with both parents based on individualized best-interest findings. Supporters would likely view the bill as promoting parental equality and more balanced parenting time, while opponents would likely argue that a presumption of equal placement could constrain judicial discretion and may not fit cases involving conflict, distance, or child-specific needs. The new geographic-separation factor suggests concern that equal placement may be impractical where parents live far apart, highlighting a likely tension between uniform shared-parenting rules and case-by-case best-interest determinations.