Wisconsin Senate Bill SB886

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/26
• Refer: 1/27/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 48.243 (1) (g) and 48.31 (2); to create 48.422 (4m) of the statutes; Relating to: elimination of a jury trial in a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) proceeding and substitution of judge in a proceeding for the termination of parental rights.

Summary

SB886 would change Wisconsin’s juvenile court procedures in child welfare cases. In CHIPS and UCHIPS proceedings, the bill removes the statutory right to a jury trial for most cases, while preserving that right when the child is an Indian child subject to the Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Act. In termination of parental rights (TPR) cases, the bill also narrows who may request substitution of judge and imposes a 10-day deadline after notice of a new judge’s assignment. More specifically, the bill amends current law so that CHIPS hearings involving non-Indian children are heard by the court rather than a jury, and it revises the jury-trial language in CHIPS and UCHIPS statutes to limit jury trials to Indian-child cases. It also creates a new provision for TPR proceedings stating that only the petitioner and the parent may seek substitution of judge, with only one request allowed per action and only one judge named per request. The bill applies prospectively to petitions filed on or after its effective date.

Impact

The bill would amend sections 48.243 and 48.31 of the Wisconsin statutes and create section 48.422 (4m), changing procedural rights in child welfare and parental-rights litigation. Its practical effect would be to shift more CHIPS proceedings from jury fact-finding to bench hearings, except in Indian-child cases, and to restrict judge-substitution rights in TPR cases to fewer parties and a shorter filing window. These changes would affect children, parents, guardians, legal custodians, expectant mothers in unborn-child proceedings, guardians ad litem, courts, and practitioners handling juvenile and family court matters.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been introduced as a procedural reform measure focused on streamlining juvenile court proceedings, but the available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes showing active support or opposition. The fact that it failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 indicates it did not advance to enactment. Based on the text alone, the bill’s approach suggests a policy preference for faster, court-centered resolution of these cases, while retaining special protections for Indian children.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of jury trials in CHIPS and UCHIPS cases and the narrowing of substitution-of-judge rights in TPR proceedings. Opponents would likely view the bill as reducing procedural protections for parents, guardians, and other affected parties in highly consequential child welfare cases, while supporters would likely argue that it improves efficiency and consistency in juvenile court. The bill preserves jury-trial rights for Indian children, which suggests sensitivity to tribal and federal-state child welfare protections, but the record provided does not show any specific stakeholder positions.