S. A. M. v. Nancy M. Meister, 876 N.W.2d 746

After Jay and Nancy Meister divorced, Jay's mother Carol (paternal grandmother) moved under Wis. Stat. § 767.43(1) for court-ordered visitation with her four grandchildren, asserting informal visitation had been curtailed.
A family court commissioner granted limited visitation; on de novo review the circuit court denied the petition, concluding Carol had not shown a "relationship similar to a parent-child relationship."
The court of appeals affirmed, relying on Rogers v. Rogers, which it read to require a parent-like relationship for all petitioners under § 767.43(1).
The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the parent-child relationship requirement in § 767.43(1) applies only to a non-relative "person" or to grandparents, great-grandparents, and stepparents as well.
The Court also considered whether allowing visitation based on best interest (without a parent-like relationship requirement for grandparents) impermissibly infringes parents' due process rights under Troxel.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: held the parent-child relationship phrase modifies only the open-ended "person" category (not grandparents, great-grandparents, or stepparents) and that best-interest determinations must give special weight to fit parents' decisions, preserving constitutionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Meister children/guardian ad litem)	Defendant's Argument (Nancy)	Held
Whether the clause “who has maintained a relationship similar to a parent-child relationship with the child” in Wis. Stat. § 767.43(1) modifies only the word "person" or applies to grandparents, great-grandparents, and stepparents as well	The clause attaches only to the undefined "person" category; grandparents/stepparents need not prove a parent-like relationship	Reading the clause to exclude grandparents would allow courts to award visitation over parental objections based solely on best-interest, intruding on parental rights	The Court held the qualifying clause applies only to the "person" category; grandparents, great-grandparents, and stepparents need not prove a parent-child relationship under § 767.43(1)
Whether allowing grandparent visitation under § 767.43(1) without a parent-like relationship requirement violates parents' due process rights (Troxel)	The statutory reading in Rogers was incorrect and does not raise constitutional concerns if courts afford proper weight to parents' choices	Parent's liberty interest requires a higher barrier than notice and best-interest inquiry; Troxel demands special protections	The Court held § 767.43(1) is constitutional as interpreted: courts may grant visitation in the child's best interest but must give special weight to a fit parent's determination, satisfying Troxel

Rogers v. Rogers, 300 Wis. 2d 532 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (court of appeals earlier decision interpreting § 767.43(1) to require a parent-like relationship)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have a fundamental due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children; courts must give special weight to fit parents' determinations)
Roger D.H. v. Virginia O., 250 Wis. 2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (held courts should read Troxel's presumption of deference to fit parents into Wisconsin grandparent-visitation statute)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles: focus on text, context, and statutory history)
Holtzman v. Knott, 193 Wis. 2d 649 (Wis. 1995) (prior visitation discussion referenced by courts interpreting visitation statutes)