S.R. & C.L. v. Circuit Court, 876 N.W.2d 147

Background

S.R. (birth mother) was artificially inseminated with anonymous donor sperm and gave birth on June 7, 2014; S.R. and C.L. (both women) married six days later.
S.R. and C.L. filed a pleading titled "Joint Petition for Determination of Parentage" under the adoption docket seeking declarations that C.L. is a legal parent and the donor is not.
Petitioners asked the court to apply Wisconsin statutes governing paternity and artificial insemination as "ungendered" in light of Wolf v. Walker and Obergefell, and asserted the intended-parent doctrine as an alternative basis.
At hearing the court concluded the filing was not a true adoption but a declaratory challenge to statutes; the court offered petitioners the option to pursue a declaratory judgment or paternity action and noted statutory notice to the attorney general would be required.
Petitioners admitted they filed as an adoption to avoid filing fees and did not serve the attorney general; the circuit court denied relief for lack of competency to adjudicate a declaratory action without required service.
On appeal the court affirmed, holding that § 806.04 requires strict compliance (including service on the attorney general when a statute’s constitutionality is challenged) and failure to do so is fatal to the court's competency to decide the claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether C.L. can be declared a legal parent by applying §§ 891.40/891.41 as "ungendered" after Wolf/Obergefell	Statutes must be read gender-neutrally under § 990.001(2); Wolf/Obergefell entitles same-sex spouses to the same parental presumptions	The pleading was mischaracterized as an adoption; plaintiffs did not follow declaratory-judgment procedure or notify the AG	Court did not reach substantive statutory/constitutional question; dismissed for lack of competency due to failure to serve the AG
Whether the filing could proceed as an adoption despite petitioners' stated intent	Adoption label sufficed to obtain requested relief	The petition sought declaratory relief and constitutional rulings, not adoption; improper use to avoid fees and opposing party	Court found the action was actually a declaratory challenge and not an adoption; dismissal appropriate
Whether failure to serve the attorney general is fatal when constitutionality of a statute is challenged	Plaintiffs did not contest notice requirement but argued constitutional precedent required relief	State argued strict compliance with § 806.04 is required and AG must be served	Failure to serve AG deprived court of competency; dismissal required
Whether Wolf/Obergefell automatically resolve parentage presumption questions under §§ 891.40/891.41	Wolf and Obergefell support extending marital-parent benefits to same-sex spouses, so C.L. should be presumed parent	State contended Obergefell/Wolf did not resolve the specific paternity/artificial-insemination statute text and procedural requirements control	Court declined to decide; noted Obergefell did not answer the specific statutory questions and remand not reached because of procedural defect

Key Cases Cited

Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2014) (district court invalidating Wisconsin same-sex marriage restrictions)
Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court's decision in Wolf)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court recognizing same-sex marriage rights under Fourteenth Amendment)
William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437 (Wis. 1981) (failure to give AG notice in declaratory-judgment action is fatal to court's jurisdiction/competency)
Xcel Energy Servs., Inc. v. LIRC, 349 Wis. 2d 234 (Wis. 2013) (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from court competency; competency may be lost for failure to comply with statutory prerequisites)
In re Paternity of F.T.R. (Rosecky v. Schissel), 349 Wis. 2d 84 (Wis. 2013) (discussing surrogacy and intended-parentage principles)