## Facts

- Terri Williquette was the mother of two minor children, B.W. (age seven) and C.P. (age eight), and was married to Bert Williquette.
- The State alleged Bert repeatedly physically and sexually abused the children, including beatings with a metal stick and sexual assaults.
- The children allegedly reported multiple abusive incidents to Terri.
- Despite alleged knowledge of ongoing abuse, Terri allegedly failed to intervene or report and continued to leave the children in Bert’s sole custody for extended periods.
- The State charged Terri with two counts of child abuse under Wis. Stat. § 940.201 based on her failure to act to prevent the abuse.

## Issues

1. Whether Wis. Stat. § 940.201 permits prosecuting a parent as a principal for child abuse when the parent knowingly allows another to abuse the child by failing to act and continuing to expose the child to that person’s custody.
2. Whether an omission can satisfy the act requirement for “subject[ing]” a child to abuse when the defendant has a legal duty to protect the child.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a parent who knowingly permits another person to abuse the parent’s child “subjects” the child to abuse within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 940.201.
- The Court concluded the statute is not limited to those who directly inflict abuse; it reaches a parent who, with a duty to protect, knowingly exposes the child to a foreseeable risk of abuse and thereby is a substantial factor in the abuse.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reinstatement of the charges and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability may be based on an omission when the defendant has a legal duty to act and can physically perform the required act.
- The parent–child relationship creates a legal duty to protect the child; failure to act on that duty can constitute the proscribed conduct when the offense definition includes exposing or “subjecting” the child to abuse.
- Under Wis. Stat. § 940.201, “subject[ing]” a child to abuse includes knowingly placing or leaving the child in circumstances where abuse by another is a foreseeable and predictable consequence, and the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in the resulting harm.
- For parental omission liability under the statute, the State must prove the parent’s knowing disregard of facts triggering the duty to protect, coupled with continued exposure of the child to the abuser.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted Wis. Stat. § 940.201 to allow direct child-abuse liability for a parent who, despite a duty to protect, knowingly permits abuse by failing to act and continuing to leave the child in conditions where abuse is foreseeably likely.


State v. Williquette, 129 Wis. 2d 239, 385 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. 1986)