Patrick v. Patrick
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
1. Character of rights granted to James. Ruth’s counsel argues that the judgment provides for dual custody (sometimes referred to as divided, or split custody) even though it specifically refers to James’ right as “visitation.” In the most-restricted sense, a parent’s right to visit his child while in the custody of another, means a right of access to the child. Courts often deem it wise, however, to provide that visits may be made out of- .the presence of the custodian of the child, and removal of the child from the state may be permitted for the purpose of allowing a visit with a parent…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burge v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- McFadden v. McFaddenOregon Supreme Court · 1956
- Block v. BlockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Peterson v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Bliffert v. BliffertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Gardebring v. RizzoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Burich v. BurichNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Kritzik v. KritzikWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Braatz v. BraatzOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Marotz v. MarotzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.