Marriage of Glidewell v. Glidewell
869 N.W.2d 796
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jill Glidewell and Herbert Glidewell were married in 2007; their child was born in 2008; divorce filed in 2008 with a domestic abuse injunction issued May 2009 and expiring May 2013.
- May 3, 2011: Jill and Herbert stipulated to joint custody; the court incorporated the stipulation with a guardian ad litem’s recommendation.
- During May 2011 hearing Jill testified joint custody was in the children’s best interests.
- After the divorce, Jill filed post-judgment motions (including Dec. 2012 modification request and June 2013 § 806.07 motion) seeking changes to custody.
- February 26, 2014: circuit court denied reopening and modified the order to continue joint custody while assigning health-care decisions to Jill and educational decisions to Herbert; order affirmed on appeal.
- The court found Jill waived the § 767.41(2)(d) presumption by stipulating to joint custody prior to the original judgment and did not base modification on post-judgment domestic violence facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jill waived the § 767.41(2)(d) presumption. | Glidewell argues waiver based on pre-divorce events. | Glidewell contends waiver occurred when Jill stipulated to joint custody. | Waiver found; presumption not applicable to pre-stipulation facts. |
| Whether the joint custody with split decision-making serves the children's best interests. | Glidewell claims record does not support joint custody with educational decision to Herbert and health care to Jill. | Glidewell argues the circuit court properly weighed § 767.41(5) factors and guardian ad litem’s findings. | Yes; order supported by the § 767.41(5) factors and court’s careful discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. State, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to plain meaning)
- State v. Ndina, 315 Wis. 2d 653 (Wis. 2009) (waiver/forfeiture concepts in domestic context)
- Gove v. State, 148 Wis. 2d 936 (Wis. 1989) (principles of fairness in asserting rights late in litigation)
- Nehls v. Nehls, 343 Wis. 2d 499 (Wis. 2012) (courts disfavour late reversal of positions actually consented to in litigation)
- Paul M.J. v. Dorene A.G., 181 Wis. 2d 304 (Ct. App. 1993) (discretion to apply lower modification standard after truce period)