## Facts

- J.L. (“Jasmine”) was born in May 2015 to her mother, Tamara.
- In 2015, Tamara and Jasmine lived with Danielle (D.L.), a non-relative family friend; Danielle also provided childcare for Jasmine from early infancy.
- Tamara and Jasmine later moved out for a period.
- In November 2016, Tamara was arrested, and Jasmine moved back in with Danielle and began living with her again.
- After Tamara’s release from jail, Tamara and Danielle had a falling out concerning Jasmine’s care.
- On September 16, 2019, Danielle filed a petition in Milwaukee County Circuit Court seeking permanent guardianship of Jasmine.
- The circuit court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for Jasmine.
- On October 10, 2019, the circuit court granted Danielle a temporary 60-day guardianship.
- Jasmine’s maternal grandmother, Stephanie (S.C.), also sought guardianship and later appealed the order granting guardianship to Danielle.
- At a guardianship hearing, Tamara told the circuit court she wanted Jasmine placed with Stephanie, and she confirmed that recommendation when questioned.
- At the contested hearing on December 10, 2019, the GAL argued that because Tamara did not seek custody herself, the circuit court did not need to decide Tamara’s parental fitness and should decide only what was in Jasmine’s best interests when selecting between proposed guardians.
- The circuit court accepted that approach, treated the matter as a best-interests contest without making a finding on Tamara’s fitness, and granted permanent guardianship of Jasmine to Danielle.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erred by awarding guardianship to a nonparent based solely on the child’s best interests without first making the required threshold determination regarding the biological mother’s fitness (or other legally sufficient basis to displace the mother’s superior rights).
2. Whether the mother’s stated placement preference (favoring the grandmother) eliminated the need for a parental-fitness determination before the court could choose a nonparent guardian.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the order granting guardianship to Danielle and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by granting guardianship based only on best interests without first determining Tamara’s fitness.
- The court directed that, on remand, the circuit court must apply the correct legal framework, which requires the threshold parental-rights determination before any best-interests comparison between third-party guardians.

## Legal Principles

- A parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of a child, and courts generally presume that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interests.
- In a contested guardianship between nonparents where the parent retains parental rights, a court may not treat the case as a free-standing best-interests contest unless the court first finds the parent unfit or otherwise determines there is a legally sufficient basis to displace the parent’s superior rights.
- A parent’s expressed placement preference is an exercise of parental authority; it does not, by itself, remove the need for the court to address the parent’s fitness before awarding guardianship to a nonparent.
- A discretionary guardianship decision based on an incorrect legal standard constitutes an erroneous exercise of discretion and requires reversal and remand so the proper standard can be applied in the first instance.

## Conclusion

In the Interest of J.L. v. D.L., the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a permanent guardianship awarded to a non-relative family friend because the circuit court relied only on a best-interests analysis and did not first decide whether the child’s mother was unfit (or otherwise lacked superior parental rights). The case was remanded so the circuit court could apply the required threshold parental-rights framework before selecting a guardian.


In the Interest of J.L. v. D.L., Appeal No. 2020AP330 (2022)