## Facts

- Angela M.W., an adult, was pregnant with a viable fetus; her physician suspected continued cocaine or other drug use during pregnancy.
- Blood tests during pregnancy repeatedly indicated “cocaine or other drugs.”
- After Angela declined treatment and missed appointments, her physician reported concerns to county authorities, citing feared serious harm to the fetus absent intervention.
- The county filed a motion to take an “unborn child” into custody under Wis. Stat. § 48.19(1)(c) (1993–94) and a CHIPS petition under Wis. Stat. § 48.13(10).
- The juvenile court entered a detention order for the “unborn child,” which necessarily required detaining Angela to effectuate custody and transport to a hospital.
- Angela sought extraordinary relief, contending that Chapter 48 did not confer jurisdiction over a viable fetus and that detention was unauthorized.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin’s Children’s Code, Chapter 48 (including Wis. Stat. §§ 48.02 and 48.13(10)), authorizes CHIPS jurisdiction over a viable fetus such that a court may take an “unborn child” into custody, effectively detaining the pregnant woman.
2. If Chapter 48 authorizes such jurisdiction, whether applying it in this manner violates the pregnant woman’s due process and equal protection rights.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held that the legislature did not intend the Chapter 48 definition of “child” to include a fetus, including a viable fetus.
- Because Chapter 48 does not cover fetuses, the juvenile court lacked statutory jurisdiction to take the “unborn child” into custody and thereby detain the pregnant woman.
- The court resolved the case on statutory interpretation grounds and did not reach the constitutional claims.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms are construed in context and consistent with the structure and operation of the overall statutory scheme, not in isolation.
- Under Chapter 48, “child” refers to a born person; provisions concerning custody, placement, removal from the home, and related procedures presuppose a child separate from the pregnant woman.
- Courts will not extend a statutory regime to address major public policy problems absent clear legislative direction, particularly where doing so would require reworking statutory procedures.
- When a case can be decided on statutory grounds, courts generally avoid constitutional rulings.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Wisconsin’s CHIPS and custody provisions in Chapter 48 do not authorize jurisdiction over a viable fetus; as a result, the juvenile court could not detain a pregnant woman by ordering an “unborn child” into protective custody, and relief was granted on statutory grounds without deciding the constitutional questions.


State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 561 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1997)