767.863.First appearance.

Wisconsin prints certain labelled notes with the statute — effective-date notes, cross-references, and notes of the Judicial Council. They are reproduced verbatim below. The unlabelled digest of court decisions that the Legislative Reference Bureau prints after them is annotation rather than statute, and is not reproduced.

NOTE: 2005 Wis. Act 443 contains explanatory notes. Before dismissing a petition without considering the merits, sub. (1m) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the child’s best interests. J.F. v. R.B., 154 Wis. 2d 637, 454 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1990). Sub. (1m) is constitutional. The court has an obligation to refuse to allow blood tests if the tests may result in a determination that the person alleging his paternity is the natural father and that determination would not be in the best interest of the children. W.W.W. v. M.C.S., 161 Wis. 2d 1015, 468 N.W.2d 719 (1991). The plain language of sub. (1m) does not limit the court’s authority to dismiss paternity actions to cases in which no genetic tests have been performed. The circuit court in this case correctly disregarded the genetic testing upon which a nonspouse who asserted paternity relied because the testing was not completed pursuant to court order. The court properly ruled that a judicial determination that the nonspouse was the child’s father would not be in the child’s best interest. Stuart S. v. Heidi R., 2015 WI App 19, 360 Wis. 2d 388, 860 N.W.2d 538, 14-1487. Parental status that rises to the level of a constitutionally protected liberty interest does not rest solely on biological factors, but rather, is dependent upon an actual relationship with the child in which the parent assumes responsibility for the child’s emotional and financial needs. Stuart S. v. Heidi R., 2015 WI App 19, 360 Wis. 2d 388, 860 N.W.2d 538, 14-1487. Circuit courts have discretion to dismiss actions without prejudice under this section. Section 767.88 expressly contemplates that circuit courts possess discretion to dismiss a paternity action with or without prejudice prior to a trial on the merits. Consequently, s. 767.88 strongly suggests the legislature intended that courts have such discretion when dismissing actions under this section when the ultimate issue of paternity is similarly not reached. Douglas L. v. Arika B., 2015 WI App 80, 365 Wis. 2d 257, 872 N.W.2d 357, 14-2656. In re Paternity of C.A.S. and C.D.S.: The New Status of Putative Fathers’ Rights in Wisconsin. Pabst. 1992 WLR 1669.