R. G. v. S. P.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
February 16, 2023
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP1876 Cir. Ct. No. 2022TP31

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO R. P., A PERSON UNDER THE
AGE OF 18:

R. G.,

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V.

S. P.,

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
SUSAN M. CRAWFORD, Judge. Affirmed.
No. 2022AP1876

¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J.1 R.G. filed a petition in the Dane County
circuit court seeking to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to his non-marital
child, who was then seven and one-half years old. R.G. supported his petition
with an affidavit of consent to termination of parental rights and a statement in
which he asserted that he had not seen the child for seven and one-half years and
explained that termination of his parental rights would be in the child’s best
interest. The child and the child’s mother live in Illinois. R.G. lives in Dane
County. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G., pro
se, appeals, arguing that the court erred based on the statutory provision governing
venue in termination of parental rights actions, WIS. STAT. § 48.185. As I explain,
I conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction
under WIS. STAT. § 822.21.

DISCUSSION

¶2 “Jurisdiction determines the power of Wisconsin courts to decide a
matter, while venue merely determines where within Wisconsin a matter should be
tried.” Enpro Assessment Corp. v. Enpro Plus, Inc., 171 Wis. 2d 542, 549, 492
N.W.2d 325 (Ct. App. 1992). R.G. correctly states that, under the venue provision
governing termination of parental rights proceedings, “venue shall be in the county
where the birth parent or child resides at the time that the petition is filed.” WIS.
STAT. § 48.185(2).

¶3 Here, however, R.G., as the petitioner in this termination of parental
rights proceeding seeks to invoke the circuit court’s personal jurisdiction over

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(e) (2021-22).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.

2
No. 2022AP1876

persons who do not reside in Wisconsin. Thus, in this case, WIS. STAT. ch. 822,
the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), applies. See J.C. v. T.R.,
2003 WI 61, ¶¶26, 28-29, 262 Wis. 2d 217, 663 N.W.2d 734 (termination of
parental rights actions are child custody proceedings under the UCCJA, which was
enacted to address concerns arising in child custody proceedings involving
children and parents in different states); WIS. STAT. § 822.02(4) (the provisions in
ch. 822 apply to termination of parental rights proceedings). Under WIS. STAT.
§ 822.01(2)(a) and (c), the objectives of the UCCJA include: to “[a]void
jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of
child custody,” and to “[p]romote cooperation with the courts of other states to the
end that a custody decree is rendered in the state that can best decide the case in
the interest of the child.” Under WIS. STAT. § 822.21(2), § 822.21(1) is the
“exclusive jurisdictional basis” for proceedings governed by ch. 822.

¶4 Pertinent here, under WIS. STAT. § 822.21(1), a court of Wisconsin
“has jurisdiction to make an initial determination” in this termination of parental
rights proceeding only if Wisconsin “is the home state of the child on the date of
the commencement of the proceeding.” Sec. 822.21(1)(a).2 It is undisputed that

2
The full text of WIS. STAT. § 822.21 is as follows:

(1) Except as provided in s. 822.24, a court of this state
has jurisdiction to make an initial determination only if any of
the following applies:

(a) This state is the home state of the child on the date
of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state
of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the
proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or
person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.

(continued)

3
No. 2022AP1876

the child here resides in Illinois, and R.G. presented no evidence in the circuit
court showing that the child resided in Wisconsin within 6 months before he
commenced this action and that the mother lives in Wisconsin. Accordingly the
circuit court properly dismissed R.G.’s petition under § 822.21(1)(a).

¶5 Separate from his challenge to the circuit court’s dismissal of his
petition, R.G. argues that the circuit court erroneously failed to grant his petition to
waive guardian ad litem fees. R.G. asserts that he filed financial documents and
paperwork showing that he is indigent. While the record includes his petition to
waive fees with supporting financial documents and paperwork, the record does
not include, and R.G. does not point to, any document showing that the court
decided his petition to waive fees or that any guardian ad litem fees were assessed

(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction
under par. (a), or a court of the home state of the child has
declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is
the more appropriate forum under s. 822.27 or 822.28, and all of
the following apply:

1. The child and the child’s parents, or the child
and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent,
have a significant connection with this state other than
mere physical presence.

2. Substantial evidence is available in this state
concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and
personal relationships.

(c) All courts having jurisdiction under par.
(a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the
ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate
forum to determine the custody of the child under
s 822.27 or 822.28.

(d) No court of any other state would have
jurisdiction under the criteria specified in par. (a), (b), or
(c).

4
No. 2022AP1876

against R.G. Accordingly, I do not consider this argument further. Fiumefreddo
v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993) (“We are bound
by the record as it comes to us.”); Jensen v. McPherson, 2004 WI App 145, ¶6
n.4, 275 Wis. 2d 604, 685 N.W.2d 603 (“It is not this court’s responsibility to sift
and glean the record … to find facts supporting [the party’s] argument.”).

CONCLUSION

¶6 For the reasons stated above, I affirm.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

5