How to modify child custody and parenting time in Wisconsin

Sources last checked 4 November 2026. Information only, not legal advice. This page rests on the text of Wis. Stat. 767.451 (with the case notes printed with it) and 767.41, 767.481 and 767.461, supplied to us from the Wisconsin Legislature’s statutes (history through 2021 acts 20, 37 and 161). We read no court opinion itself. Read what we could not confirm below.

The short version

Wisconsin sets different tests depending on what you want to change and how long ago the judgment was entered. A court “may not modify” an order of legal custody, or an order of physical placement that would substantially alter a parent’s time, within 2 years after the final judgment, unless the party asking shows by substantial evidence that the change is necessary because the current custodial conditions are “physically or emotionally harmful to the best interest of the child”. After 2 years the court may make the same change if it finds both that the change is in the child’s best interest and that there has been “a substantial change of circumstances” since the last order. Smaller placement changes, and a few special cases, have their own tests below. For changing child support or maintenance instead, see modifying child support and alimony in Wisconsin.

What must be shown

• Within 2 years of the judgment (sub. 1(a)). Applies to an order of legal custody and to an order of physical placement that would substantially alter the time a parent may spend with the child. The party must file a petition, motion or order to show cause and prove the harm by substantial evidence. An annotation to Andrew J.N. v. Wendy L.D., 174 Wis. 2d 745 (1993), calls this a two-year “truce period” in which judicial intervention must be compelling, and says the harm must be severe enough to warrant a change. Another annotation, Paul M.J. v. Dorene A.G., 181 Wis. 2d 304 (Ct. App. 1993), says the section does not stop a court from holding a hearing during the truce period and making the order effective when it ends.
• After 2 years (sub. 1(b)). The court must find both a best-interest modification and a substantial change of circumstances since the last order affecting legal custody or substantially affecting physical placement. The statute sets two rebuttable presumptions: that continuing the current allocation of decision making is in the child’s best interest, and that continuing the child’s placement with the parent the child lives with for the greater period is too. A change in either party’s economic circumstances or marital status “is not sufficient” on its own.
• Substantially equal placement (sub. 2). If the parties have substantially equal placement and circumstances make it impractical to continue, the court may modify it if that is in the child’s best interest. In other equal-placement cases the sub. 1 standard applies, but with a rebuttable presumption that substantially equal placement is in the child’s best interest.
• A parent who has not used placement time (sub. 2m). The court may modify at any time if a parent has repeatedly and unreasonably failed to exercise the periods awarded under an order that sets specific times.
• Other placement changes (sub. 3). An order that does not substantially alter a parent’s time may be modified if the court finds the change is in the child’s best interest. Only a party may ask; an annotation to Stumpner v. Cutting, 2010 WI App 65, says the court cannot do it on its own motion.
• Denial of placement (sub. 4). At any time, on a party’s request or its own motion, the court may deny a parent’s physical placement if it “would endanger the child’s physical, mental or emotional health”. Sub. 4m requires denial of placement to a parent convicted of intentionally killing the child’s other parent, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that placement is in the child’s best interests; the court must consider the child’s wishes.
• Military parents (subs. 3m and 5m(c)). If placement is modified because a service member was or will be called to active duty, the order must reinstate the earlier schedule immediately on discharge or release. In a legal custody modification the court may not consider the member’s possible deployment as a factor in deciding whether the member may be absent from home.
• Agreed future changes (sub. 3r). The court may approve a stipulation for further modification when a specified future event is reasonably certain within 2 years of the stipulation. It may not approve one based on an anticipated behavior change by a party.

How the court decides

• In all modification actions the court considers the factors in s. 767.41(5)(am) and decides in a manner consistent with s. 767.41. That section tells the court to consider all facts relevant to the child’s best interest, says the factors are “not necessarily listed in order of importance”, and bars preferring a parent because of sex or race. It also considers whether a stepparent has a criminal record or has abused or neglected the child or any other child.
• The 14 factors in 767.41(5)(am). (1) The parents’ wishes, as shown by any stipulation, parenting plan or proposal. (2) The child’s wishes, communicated by the child or through a guardian ad litem or other professional. (3) Cooperation and communication between the parties, and whether either unreasonably refuses. (4) Whether each party can support the other’s relationship with the child, or is likely to unreasonably interfere with it. (5) The child’s relationship with siblings and others who significantly affect the child. (6) The child’s relationship with each parent, the amount and quality of past time, needed changes to custodial roles, and lifestyle changes a parent proposes to make. (7) A significant alcohol or drug problem of a party, a dating partner, or a regular member of a proposed household. (8) The child’s adjustment to home, school, religion and community. (9) The child’s age and developmental and educational needs. (10) Whether anyone’s mental or physical health in a proposed household negatively affects the child. (11) Criminal record, or evidence of abuse or neglect of any child, by a party, a dating partner or a household member. (12) Evidence of interspousal battery or domestic abuse. (13) Reports of appropriate professionals, if admitted into evidence. (14) Any other relevant factor.
• Domestic abuse. If the court finds a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery or domestic abuse by a parent, the safety and well-being of the child and of the victim parent are the “paramount concerns” in deciding legal custody and placement. For legal custody, the statute also sets a rebuttable presumption that awarding joint or sole legal custody to that party is detrimental to the child. It can be rebutted only by showing that the party completed a certified batterer treatment program and is not abusing alcohol or drugs, and that the award is in the child’s best interest. The court must state in writing whether the presumption was rebutted.
• Joint legal custody. For an initial order the statute says the court “shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child”. A case note (Abbas v. Palmersheim) says that presumption applies only to initial decisions, not to modification.
• Written findings. If legal custody or placement is contested, the court must state in writing why its findings are in the child’s best interest. If it gives a parent less than 25 percent of placement, it must make specific findings on why a greater share is not in the child’s best interests.
• If either party opposes a modification, the court must state its reasons in writing.
• The court may require the party seeking a change under sub. 1 to file a parenting plan before any hearing.
• No modification order may be entered until notice of the petition, motion or order to show cause has been given to the child’s parents, if they can be found, and to any relative or agency with custody. A petition, motion or order to show cause must include notice of the information available under s. 767.105(2).
• The court may transfer custody to the department only if the department agrees to accept it.

What the case notes add

The statute is printed with short notes on court decisions. We read only those notes, not the opinions, so treat them as pointers.

• “Necessary.” Millikin v. Millikin, 115 Wis. 2d 16 (1983), is noted as saying a change of custody must be needed because custodial conditions are harmful in some way to the child’s best interest.
• What is not a substantial change. A change in the number of placement days does not by itself establish one (Beaudoin v. Beaudoin, 2001 WI App 42). A child growing older does not by itself either, but a move from infant to adolescent together with adjustment difficulties, educational failure, harmful or illegal behavior and parents who cannot agree on a major decision did amount to one (Greene v. Hahn, 2004 WI App 214).
• Presumptions. The presumption that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interest applies only to initial custody decisions, not to modification. The presumption in favor of the current arrangement continues to apply (Abbas v. Palmersheim, 2004 WI App 126).
• Amount of time. In Landwehr v. Landwehr, 2006 WI 64, the Supreme Court is noted as saying that maximizing the time a child spends with each parent “cannot be equated with the notion of equal placement”.
• Informal changes. Parties have a right to informally agree to change a placement schedule, and an order that only changes child support does not count as an order affecting placement; the order that counts is the one that set the schedule (Culligan v. Cindric, 2003 WI App 180).
• A move. If one parent gives notice of an intended move, the other may move to modify placement, and the court may consider all relevant circumstances including the move (Hughes v. Hughes, 223 Wis. 2d 111 (Ct. App. 1998)).
• Conditions on placement. A court that denies placement may set conditions for regaining it, such as mental health treatment, anger management or counseling, if they are necessary to protect the child (State v. Alice H., 2000 WI App 228).

If a parent wants to move

• When a motion is needed (767.481(1)). If the court gave both parents periods of physical placement and one parent intends to relocate with the child 100 driving miles or more from the other, that parent must file a motion asking permission. If the parents already live more than 100 driving miles apart, the parent instead serves written notice at least 60 days before relocating, with the date and the new address.
• What the motion includes. A relocation plan (the date, the municipality and state, the reason, a proposed new placement schedule if applicable, and who pays for transportation), any request to change legal custody, notice that the other parent must file and serve an objection no later than 5 days before the initial hearing, and the court’s objection form. It is served by mail at the other parent’s most recent address on file with the court.
• Hearings. The court sets an initial hearing within 30 days of the motion, and the child may not be relocated before it. If the other parent was properly served and does not appear or does not object, the court approves the plan unless it is not in the child’s best interest. If the other parent objects, they must state the basis and their own proposals in writing within 5 business days. The court refers the parties to mediation unless it finds undue hardship or a risk to someone’s health or safety, generally appoints a guardian ad litem, and sets a further hearing within 60 days. Before the final hearing the court may allow the move temporarily if it is in the child’s immediate best interest, subject to revision.
• How the court decides (767.481(4)). If the move only minimally changes the current placement schedule, or does not change it, the court shall approve it and set a new schedule if appropriate. Otherwise it uses the 767.41(5) factors plus two presumptions that the court should approve the moving parent’s plan: where the objecting parent has not significantly exercised court-ordered placement, and where the move is related to abuse of the child or a pattern or serious incident of battery or domestic abuse. If the objecting parent files a responsive motion for a substantial change in placement or a change in legal custody, the same factors apply, with a presumption against transferring legal custody or the child’s residence to a parent who has significantly failed to exercise court-ordered placement.
• Burden of proof. The person making the motion bears the burden, except where one of those presumptions applies. Then the objecting parent must show the move is not in the child’s best interest.
• If the move is dropped or refused. The court goes on to decide the objecting parent’s responsive motion under 767.451.
• Agreed changes (767.461). If the parties file a stipulation to modify placement or legal custody after an initial order, the court incorporates it unless it finds the change is not in the child’s best interest. It may not incorporate a stipulation based on an anticipated behavior change, such as finishing an anger management course, a batterers program or drug or alcohol treatment, or serving a term for listed offenses. A case note (Racine Family Court Commissioner v. M.E.) says the court need not accept a stipulation and may examine the child’s best interests.

Before you file

• Court staff cannot give legal advice. See legal aid in Wisconsin for free or low-cost help.
• Forms, fees and local rules vary by county. Ask the clerk of circuit court in the county that handled your case what to file and what it costs. This page does not state a fee.

What we could not confirm

• Statute text. We read 767.451 as supplied to us from the Legislature’s statutes, with history through 2021 acts 20, 37 and 161. We did not compare it with a second copy or check for later amendments.
• Case law. We read no court opinion. The case notes above are the Legislature’s one-line summaries, and we do not know whether any decision has been overruled or changed since.
• Best-interest factors. We read s. 767.41 as supplied to us on 4 November 2026 and did not compare it with a second copy. We did not read the definitions it cites, such as abuse under s. 813.122 or domestic abuse under s. 813.12.
• Relocation and procedure. We read 767.481 and 767.461 as supplied to us, but not their notes in full, and we did not find a statewide form for this request, a filing fee, or a hearing timeline outside the relocation steps above. Section 767.481 also has stipulation and later subsections that this page does not summarize.

Spot something out of date? See our corrections or email hello@thecusp.app.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislature, Wis. Stat. 767.451, Revision of legal custody and physical placement orders, with case notes (text supplied to us), read 4 November 2026
• Wisconsin Legislature, Wis. Stat. 767.41, Custody and physical placement (text supplied to us), read 4 November 2026
• Wisconsin Legislature, Wis. Stat. 767.481, Relocating a child’s residence, and 767.461, Revisions agreed to by stipulation (text supplied to us), read 4 November 2026