An Act to amend 48.14 (2) (a), 48.14 (2) (b) and 48.185 (2); to create 48.417 (1m) of the statutes; Relating to: termination of parental rights under the safe haven law. (FE)
Summary
SB893 would change Wisconsin’s safe haven law procedures for newborns whose custody has been relinquished. Under current law, a parent may surrender a newborn 72 hours old or younger to specified officials or facilities, after which the child is taken into juvenile court custody and the court may proceed toward permanency planning and, in some cases, termination of parental rights (TPR). This bill requires the county’s district attorney, corporation counsel, or another designated official to file a TPR petition, or join an existing one, when the court has found probable cause that a child was relinquished under the safe haven law.
The bill also sets timing and venue rules for those proceedings. The petition must be filed in the county where the relinquishment occurred, no earlier than 30 days after relinquishment and no later than 60 days after the court’s probable-cause finding. Related statutory changes clarify venue provisions for guardianship and TPR matters involving relinquished children and update cross-references in the juvenile code. The bill applies only to relinquishments occurring on or after its effective date, which would be six months after publication.
Impact
SB893 would amend Wisconsin statutes governing juvenile court jurisdiction, venue, and termination of parental rights in safe haven cases. It creates a new mandatory filing requirement for county prosecutors or designated officials in relinquished-newborn cases, and it adds a specific statutory trigger for TPR proceedings under chapter 48. The bill would also modify venue rules so that proceedings related to a relinquished child are handled in the county where the relinquishment occurred, subject to transfer for good cause.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public debate to gauge. The bill was introduced with bipartisan-looking cosponsors from both chambers, suggesting some cross-party interest in the proposal. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment despite introduction.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be whether the state should require, rather than merely permit, county officials to initiate or join termination-of-parental-rights proceedings in safe haven cases. Supporters would likely view the bill as promoting quicker permanency and clearer responsibility for abandoned newborn cases, while critics may be concerned about mandatory litigation, county workload, and the balance between parental rights and child welfare. The venue requirement and the 30-to-60-day filing window may also be points of concern because they constrain local discretion and impose a specific procedural timeline.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 48.14 (2) (a), 48.14 (2) (b) and 48.185 (2); to create 48.417 (1m) of the statutes; Relating to: termination of parental rights under the safe haven law. (FE)