In Interest of Angel Lace M.
184 Wis. 2d 492, 516 N.W.2d 678 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Wisconsin's adoption statutes, a non-marital partner cannot adopt their partner's child without terminating the partner's parental rights, because the statutes require the termination of all existing parental rights (except in stepparent adoptions) and mandate the severance of legal ties to the natural parent upon adoption.
Facts:
- Georgina G. and her then-husband, Terry M., jointly adopted a child, Angel Lace M.
- After Georgina and Terry divorced, Terry consented to the termination of his parental rights and has had no involvement in Angel's life.
- Georgina and Angel began living with Annette G., Georgina's partner.
- Georgina and Annette have shared equally in raising Angel since they began living together.
- Annette G. wished to legally adopt Angel, while Georgina G. intended to remain Angel's legal parent, thereby creating a two-parent family.
- Annette and Georgina are not legally married, as Wisconsin law does not recognize same-sex marriages.
Procedural Posture:
- Annette G. filed a petition in the Brown County Circuit Court (trial court) to adopt Angel Lace M.
- Simultaneously, Georgina G. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Terry M. and for Angel's adoptive placement with Annette.
- The trial court found the adoption to be in the child's best interests but denied the petitions, ruling that the adoption was not permissible under Wisconsin statutes.
- Annette G. and Georgina G. (appellants) appealed the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeals certified the appeal for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Wisconsin's adoption statutes permit the adoption of a child by the non-marital partner of the child's legal parent, where the legal parent's rights are not being terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - Steinmetz, J.
No. Wisconsin's adoption statutes do not permit a non-marital partner to adopt their partner's child without terminating the partner's parental rights. The 'best interests of the child' standard, while paramount, does not authorize a court to grant an adoption that fails to meet specific statutory requirements. First, Wis. Stat. § 48.81(1) requires a minor's parental rights to be terminated before they are eligible for adoption, which the court interprets as requiring the rights of all legal parents to be terminated. Second, Wis. Stat. § 48.92(2) mandates that an adoption severs all legal rights and duties of the prior parent, with a specific exception only for a parent who is the spouse of the adopter. Because Annette is not Georgina's spouse, this mandatory 'cut-off' provision would terminate Georgina's parental rights, frustrating the purpose of the petition. The statutes do not violate any constitutional rights as there is no fundamental right to adopt, and the law is rationally related to the state's interest in protecting the traditional 'unitary family'.
Dissenting - Heffernan, C.J.
Yes. The adoption statutes, when properly construed, permit this adoption. The majority ignores the legislature's explicit mandate in Wis. Stat. § 48.01(2) that the children's code 'shall be liberally construed' with the 'best interests of the child' as the 'paramount consideration.' The statute requiring parental rights to be terminated (§ 48.81) is ambiguous and should be interpreted to require only one parent's rights to be terminated, as is the case in stepparent adoptions. Furthermore, the 'cut-off' provision (§ 48.92) should be construed as directory, not mandatory, in this situation to avoid an absurd result that contradicts the child's best interests. By applying a strict construction, the majority flouts the legislative will and harms the child's need for stability and continuity of relationships.
Dissenting - Bablitch, J.
Yes. The legislature intentionally used broad and ambiguous directives like 'liberal construction' and 'best interests of the child' to delegate the resolution of complex, unforeseen family situations to the courts. The legislature knew it could not anticipate every scenario and trusted the judiciary to apply these principles. The court abdicates its responsibility by applying a rigid interpretation and passing the issue back to a legislature that is unlikely to act on such a sensitive topic.
Concurring - Geske, J.
No. The majority's analysis of current Wisconsin law is correct. While the legislature has directed courts to liberally construe the statute with the child's best interests in mind, courts are still bound by the specific, unambiguous statutory requirements for adoption. The court's role is to interpret the law as written, not to rewrite it to achieve a desired policy outcome. I write separately to strongly encourage the legislature to revisit and update the adoption statutes to address the realities of modern families and ensure the law truly serves the best interests of all children in the state.
Analysis:
This case establishes that in Wisconsin, specific statutory requirements for adoption supersede the general 'best interests of the child' standard. The court's strict interpretation of the statutes demonstrates judicial restraint, placing the responsibility to update laws for non-traditional families squarely on the legislature. This decision effectively foreclosed second-parent adoptions for unmarried couples in Wisconsin, highlighting a conflict between existing legal frameworks and evolving family structures, and setting the stage for future legislative debate.
Unlock the full brief for In Interest of Angel Lace M.