Scace v. Schulte (In re A.J.S.)
913 N.W.2d 189
Wis. Ct. App.2018Background
- Unmarried mother Sara Scace gave birth in 2014; the child received the mother's surname on the birth certificate.
- Bryan Schulte signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity after birth; no court paternity judgment was entered.
- Scace sued over custody, visitation, support, and the child's surname; all issues were settled by stipulation except the surname.
- The circuit court concluded it had authority under the paternity statutes to order a name change despite paternity being established by voluntary acknowledgement, and ordered the child’s surname changed to Scace‑Schulte after finding that was in the child’s best interests.
- Scace appealed, arguing the court lacked statutory authority to change the child’s name; the court of appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scace) | Defendant's Argument (Schulte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court may order a child’s name change when paternity is established by voluntary acknowledgement under WIS. STAT. § 767.805 | § 767.805 does not authorize a court to change a child’s name; court lacked statutory authority | § 767.805’s declaration that acknowledgement is "of the same effect as a judgment" means § 767.89(3m) name‑change authority applies | Held: Court lacks authority; § 767.89(3m) applies only to judicial paternity determinations, not voluntary acknowledgements |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. R.R.R., 166 Wis. 2d 306, 479 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1991) (paternity courts limited to statutory authority)
- State v. Cole, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2000) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles and context rules)
- In re the Paternity of Noah J.M., 223 Wis. 2d 768, 590 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1998) (court previously lacked authority to change a child’s name absent statutory grant)
- Zimmerman v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., 38 Wis. 2d 626, 157 N.W.2d 648 (1968) (legislative acquiescence doctrine)
- Groh v. Groh, 110 Wis. 2d 117, 327 N.W.2d 655 (1983) (legislature’s scheme limits courts’ jurisdiction)
- Estate of Miller v. Storey, 378 Wis. 2d 358, 903 N.W.2d 759 (2017) (doctrine of legislative acquiescence reaffirmed)
- Turner v. Taylor, 268 Wis. 2d 628, 673 N.W.2d 716 (Ct. App. 2003) (court may decline to reach non‑dispositive issues)