767.44.Prohibiting visitation or physical placement if a parent kills other parent.
Subch. V: Child Custody, Placement, and Visitation · Last amended 2019 · Current through 2025 Wisconsin Act 247 · Last verified September 8, 2026
In one sentenceSection 767.44 prohibits visitation or physical placement for a parent who intentionally killed the child's other parent, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it would be in the child's best interests.
(1)WHEN PROHIBITED. Notwithstanding ss. 767.225 (1) (am), 767.41 (1), (4), and (5), 767.804 (3) (a), 767.805 (4) (a), and 767.89 (3) and except as provided in sub. (2), in an action under this chapter that affects a minor child, a court may not grant to the child’s parent visitation or physical placement rights with the child if the parent has been convicted under s. 940.01 of the first-degree intentional homicide, or under s. 940.05 of the 2nd-degree intentional homicide, of the child’s other parent, and the conviction has not been reversed, set aside, or vacated.
(2)WHEN NOT APPLICABLE. Subsection (1) does not apply if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the visitation or periods of physical placement would be in the best interests of the child. The court shall consider the wishes of the child in making the determination.
End
Amendment History
Wisconsin prints each section’s legislative history as a single “History” line naming every act that created or amended it, and every renumbering. It is reproduced verbatim below.
History: 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 61; 2005 a. 443 s. 102; Stats. 2005 s. 767.44; 2019 a. 95.
Plain-English Summary
A short section that overrides several others by name, and its subject is as grave as it sounds. Notwithstanding the temporary-order, custody, placement and paternity provisions it lists, the court may not grant visitation or periods of physical placement in the circumstance it describes.
There is one exception, and it is deliberately hard to satisfy: the prohibition does not apply if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the visitation or placement would be in the best interests of the child. Not the ordinary preponderance standard, and not a presumption the parent can argue away.
Section 767.43 carries the parallel rule for third-party visitation, and Section 767.451 the parallel rule for modifying an existing placement order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent who killed the other parent get placement in Wisconsin?
Not unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the visitation or periods of physical placement would be in the best interests of the child.
What standard of proof applies to the exception?
Clear and convincing evidence — a higher standard than the preponderance test used elsewhere in this chapter.
Does this apply to an order already made?
Section 767.451 carries the parallel rule for modifying an existing physical placement order, and Section 767.43 for third-party visitation.
Source & verification. The statutory text, official notes and history are reproduced verbatim from the
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 767 (Wis. Stat. § 767.44), published by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. Current through 2025 Wisconsin Act 247. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:parent killed other parent placement Wisconsinhomicide bar visitation Wisconsinclear and convincing best interests767.44 prohibited