Wisconsin statute: 767.25
767.25 Child support. (1) Whenever the court approves
a stipulation for child support under s. 767.10, enters a judgment of
annulment, divorce or legal separation, or enters an order or a judgment
in a paternity action or in an action under s. 767.02 (1) (f) or (j),
767.08 or 767.62(3), the court shall do all of the following:
(a) Order either or both parents to pay an amount reasonable
or necessary to fulfill a duty to support a child. The support amount
may be expressed as a percentage of parental income or as a fixed sum,
or as a combination of both in the alternative by requiring payment of
the greater or lesser of either a percentage of parental income or a
fixed sum.
(b) Ensure that the parties have stipulated which party, if either is
eligible, will claim each child as an exemption for federal income tax
purposes under 26 USC 151 (c) (1) (B), or as an exemption for state income
tax purposes under s. 71.07 (8) (b) or under the laws of another state.
If the parties are unable to reach an agreement about the tax exemption
for each child, the court shall make the decision in accordance with
state and federal tax laws. In making its decision, the court shall consider
whether the parent who is assigned responsibility for the child's health
care expenses under sub. (4m) is covered under a health insurance policy
or plan, including a self-insured plan, that is not subject to s. 632.897
(10) and that conditions coverage of a dependent child on whether the
child is claimed by the insured parent as an exemption for purposes of
federal or state income taxes.
(1g) In determining child support payments, the court
may consider all relevant financial information or other information
relevant to the parent's earning capacity, including information reported
under s. 49.22 (2m) to the department or the county child support agency
under s. 59.53 (5).
(1j) Except as provided in sub. (1m), the court
shall determine child support payments by using the percentage standard
established by the department under s. 49.22 (9).
(1m) Upon request by a party, the cowl may modify the amount of child
support payments determined under sub. (1j) if, after considering the
following factors, the court finds by the greater weight-of the credible
evidence that use of the percentage standard is unfair to the child or
to any of the parties:
(a) The financial resources of the child.
(b) The financial resources of both parents.
(bj) Maintenance received by either party.
(bp) The needs of each party in order to support himself or herself
at a level equal to or greater than that established under 42 USC 9902
(2).
(bz) The needs of any person, other than the child, whom either patty
is legally obligated to support.
(c) If the parties were married, the standard of living the child would
have enjoyed had the marriage not ended in annulment, divorce or legal
separation.
(d) The desirability that the custodian remain in the home as a full-time
parent.
(e) The cost of day care if the custodian works outside the home, or
the value of custodial services performed by the custodian if the custodian
remains in the borne.
(ej) The award of substantial periods of physical placement to both
parents.
(em) Extraordinary travel expenses incurred in exercising the right
to periods of physical placement under s. 767.24.
(f) The physical, mental and emotional health needs of the child, including
any costs for health insurance as provided for under sub. (4m).
(g) The child's educational needs.
(h) The tax consequences to each party.
(hm) The best interests of the child.
(hs) The earning capacity of each parent, based on each
parent's education, training and work experience and the availability
of work in or near the parent's community.
(i) Any other factors which the court in each case determines are relevant
(1n) If the court finds under sub. (1m) that use of the
percentage standard is unfair to the child or the requesting party, the
court shall state in writing or on the record the amount of support that
would be required by using the percentage standard, the amount by which
the court's order deviates from that amount, its reasons for finding
that use of the percentage standard is unfair to the child or the party,
its reasons for the amount of the modification and the basis for the
modification.
(2) The court may protect and promote the best interests of the minor
children by setting aside a portion of the child support which either
party is ordered to pay in a separate fund or trust for the support,
education and welfare of such children.
(3) Violation of physical placement rights by the custodial parent does
not constitute reason for failure to meet child support obligations.
(4) The court shall order either party or both to pay
for the support of any child of the parties who is less than 18 years
old, or any child of the parties who is less than 19 years old if the
child is pursuing an accredited course of instruction leading to the
acquisition of a high school diploma or its equivalent.
(1j) Judge Mary K. Wagner refuses to use the % 49.22
standard. Read how she verbally one the January transcripts denied them.
(bp) Wagner never condsidered mine or my two boys need
and put us below the poverty level.
(c.) Wagner only consideration was only to the five,
but totally rejects the presence of the two boys that had the experience
of being orphanaged by her decision. She forced my oldest to drop out
from full time school to be able to buy food and shelter for him and
his brother. "Compassionat" Judge Wagner considered them old and sufficient
enough at 16 and 17 years of age.
(em) It is my responsibility for every inch of travel
for placement. No meeting 1/2 way.
(h) My Ex. doesn't need even a full time job, but gets
to chlaim the five even though I paid $18,000 in the first 22 months.
(hm) Best interest of the child?? For 2004 they only
could see their Dad a total of 7 1/2 days?
(hs) Earning capacity of my Ex. is about $26,000 for
a first year teacher in Kenosha, but Wagner refuses that and defies this
statute.
(4) I had to force this rule down
their throats before the yreluctantly accepted it. The courts wanted to take my oldest
son from my placement, because he turned 18. Yet he was still in
school.