Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (2026)
Jurisdiction over children alleged to be in need of protection or services
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
48.1348.13 Jurisdiction over children alleged to be in need of protection or services. Except as provided in s. 48.028 (3), the court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court if one of the following applies:
48.13(3)(3) The child has been the victim of abuse, as defined in s. 48.02 (1) (a) or (b) to (g), including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another.
48.13(3m)(3m) The child is at substantial risk of becoming the victim of abuse, as defined in s. 48.02 (1) (a) or (b) to (g), including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another, based on reliable and credible information that another child in the home has been the victim of such abuse.
48.13(4)(4) The child’s parent or guardian signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child.
48.13(4m)(4m) The child’s guardian is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child, but is unwilling or unable to sign the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection.
48.13(8)(8) The child is receiving inadequate care during the period of time a parent is missing, incarcerated, hospitalized or institutionalized.
48.13(9)(9) The child is at least age 12, signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is in need of special treatment or care which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is unwilling, neglecting, unable or needs assistance to provide.
48.13(10)(10) The child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.
48.13(10m)(10m) The child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian is at substantial risk of neglecting, refusing or being unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of the child, based on reliable and credible information that the child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of another child in the home.
48.13(11)(11) The child is suffering emotional damage for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable and is neglecting, refusing or unable, for reasons other than poverty, to obtain necessary treatment or to take necessary steps to ameliorate the symptoms.
48.13(11m)(11m) The child is suffering from an alcohol and other drug abuse impairment, exhibited to a severe degree, for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is neglecting, refusing or unable to provide treatment.
48.13(13)(13) The child has not been immunized as required by s. 252.04 and not exempted under s. 252.04 (3).
48.13(14)(14) The child’s parent is residing in a qualifying residential family-based treatment facility or will be residing at such a facility at the time of a child’s placement with the parent in the facility, signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection, and, with the department’s consent, requests that the child reside with him or her at the qualifying residential family-based treatment facility.
48.13 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 29, 354; 1979 c. 298, 300, 334; 1985 a. 321; 1987 a. 285, 339, 403; 1993 a. 27, 363, 395, 474; 1995 a. 77, 275; 1997 a. 80; 2001 a. 2; 2005 a. 113; 2007 a. 77; 2009 a. 94; 2017 a. 59; 2019 a. 9; 2023 a. 79.
48.13 NoteNOTE: 1993 Wis. Act 395, which created subs. (3m) and (10m), contains extensive explanatory notes.
48.13 AnnotationCHIPS proceedings are controlled by the Code of Civil Procedure unless this chapter requires a different procedure; summary judgment under s. 802.08 is available in CHIPS cases. N.Q. v. Milwaukee County Department of Social Services, 162 Wis. 2d 607, 470 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1991).
48.13 AnnotationA jury verdict that children are in need of protection or services requires a separate verdict question for each of the specific jurisdictional grounds alleged. State v. Aimee M., 194 Wis. 2d 282, 533 N.W.2d 812 (1995).
48.13 AnnotationA viable fetus is not a “person” within the definition of a child under s. 48.02 (2). A court does not have jurisdiction over a fetus under this section. State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 209 Wis. 2d 112, 561 N.W.2d 729 (1997), 95-2480.
48.13 AnnotationA child’s need for protection or services should be determined as of the date the petition is filed. Children can be adjudicated in need of protection or services when divorced parents have joint custody, one parent committed acts proscribed by sub. (10), and at the time of the hearing the other can provide the necessary care for the children. State v. Gregory L.S., 2002 WI App 101, 253 Wis. 2d 563, 643 N.W.2d 890, 01-2325.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 158
cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 561 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1997).
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 561 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1997). “Angela first argues that the juvenile court did not have original jurisdiction over her or her viable fetus under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 . [15] However, the statute does not require jurisdiction over a parent in order to obtain jurisdiction over a child.”
State v. Shaun M. Sanders, 912 N.W.2d 16 (Wis. 2018). “Second, we noted that other aspects of juvenile court jurisdiction, such as "persons who may be dependent or neglected," Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (1967-68), applied only when "their status was called to the attention of the 15 No.”
State v. Gregory L. S., 2002 WI App 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “appeals from circuit court orders adjudging his children to be in need of protection or services (CHIPS) under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (10) (relating to parental neglect) and the accompanying dispositional orders.”
Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30 (Wis. 2007). “¶ 18 We conclude that the statute is not ambiguous and that its plain language requires that: (1) the child who is the subject of the petition has been adjudged to be in need of protection or services under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (2), (3) or (10); and (2) within the three years…”
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, the mother of a viable fetus, filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus or, in the alternative, a supervisory writ barring the Waukesha County juvenile *539 court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction in a pending child in need of protection or…”
Dane Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ponn P., 2005 WI 32 (Wis. 2005). “A CHIPS determination may not be made unless one of the 14 grounds described in Wis. Stat. § 48.13 is found. Each of those grounds defines some type of parental abandonment, abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child.”
Steven v. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47 (Wis. 2004). “31 establishes fact-finding hearings (1) to determine if the allegations in a petition for children alleged to be in need of protection or services under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 are proved by clear and convincing evidence; (2) to determine if the allegations in a petition for unborn…”
In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Marquette S., 2007 WI 77 (Wis. 2007). “" ¶ 9 On April 13, 2004, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Judge Kevin Martens, found Marquette to be a child in need of protection and services pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.13 . ¶ 10 On June 16, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate Denise W.”
Kenosha Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93 (Wis. 2006). “The circuit court found jurisdiction over Max, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (8). The matter proceeded to a dispositional *569 hearing.”
La Crosse Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Tara P., 2002 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (10). Two weeks later, the La Crosse County Human Services Department filed two petitions for protection or services on behalf of the children.”
State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2013 WI 58 (Wis. 2013). “, Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (10) (the court has jurisdiction over a child whose parent, guardian, or legal custodian neglects, refuses, or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care, or shelter so as to seriously endanger…”
Monroe Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 48 (Wis. 2004). “After Kelli admitted that her children were in need of protection and services, a dispositional order was entered under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (10) on November 19, 2001.”
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gregory L. S., 2002 WI App 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “appeals from circuit court orders adjudging his children to be in need of protection or services (CHIPS) under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 (10) (relating to parental neglect) and the accompanying dispositional orders.”
Portage Cnty. v. D. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(1)(e) — 1 case
People in Interest of DK, 245 N.W.2d 644 (S.D. 1976).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(10) — 48 cases
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 561 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1997). “Angela first argues that the juvenile court did not have original jurisdiction over her or her viable fetus under Wis. Stat. § 48.13 . [15] However, the statute does not require jurisdiction over a parent in order to obtain jurisdiction over a child.”
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, the mother of a viable fetus, filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus or, in the alternative, a supervisory writ barring the Waukesha County juvenile *539 court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction in a pending child in need of protection or…”
State v. Allen M., 571 N.W.2d 872 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 485 N.W.2d 267 (Wis. 1992).
State v. Aimee M., 533 N.W.2d 812 (Wis. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(10m) — 4 cases
Portage Cnty. v. D. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. A. C. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Brown Cnty. Human Servs. v. T. F. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Kenosha Cnty. DC & FS v. K. E. H. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(11) — 5 cases
DOE BY NELSON v. Milwaukee Cnty., 712 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D. Wis. 1989).
Portage Cnty. v. D. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
In Interest of Lauran F., 523 N.W.2d 290 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
W.A.B. v. W.G.B. (in Re W.a.b.), 925 N.W.2d 783 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
In re H. M. G., 926 N.W.2d 515 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(12) — 7 cases
State v. Sanders, 2017 WI App 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Thomas F., 538 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Thomas J. W., 570 N.W.2d 586 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
D.V. v. State, 302 N.W.2d 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. C.W., 419 N.W.2d 327 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(2) — 4 cases
Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 599 N.W.2d 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
C.N. v. Waukesha Cnty. Cmty. Human Servs. Dep't, 422 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
In Interest of SSK, 422 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
Sheboygan Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. N. H. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(3) — 7 cases
Monroe Cnty. v. JENNIFER V., 548 N.W.2d 837 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Joni B. v. State, 549 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. 1996).
State v. Thomas F., 538 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
Portage Cnty. v. D. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Juneau Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.G.M. (In re A.M.), 932 N.W.2d 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(3m) — 6 cases
Monroe Cnty. v. JENNIFER V., 548 N.W.2d 837 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Racine Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. L. R. H.-J. (In re J.N.J.-W.), 927 N.W.2d 935 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
Brown Cnty. Human Servs. v. T. F. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Manitowoc Cnty. HSD v. K.R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Juneau Cnty. DHS v. R. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(4) — 9 cases
Deegan Ex Rel. Deegan v. Jefferson Cnty., 525 N.W.2d 149 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Jones v. Dane Cnty., 537 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. M. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
S. G. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Child. & Families (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
T.J.N. v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 416 N.W.2d 632 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(6) — 5 cases
State v. Isaac J.R., 582 N.W.2d 476 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Jason R.N., 549 N.W.2d 752 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Interest of D.L.D. v. Circuit Court for Crawford Cnty., 327 N.W.2d 682 (Wis. 1983).
T.J.N. v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 416 N.W.2d 632 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
In Matter of Finding of Contempt in Interest of Tjn, 416 N.W.2d 632 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(8) — 9 cases
Dane Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ponn P., 2005 WI 32 (Wis. 2005). “A CHIPS determination may not be made unless one of the 14 grounds described in Wis. Stat. § 48.13 is found. Each of those grounds defines some type of parental abandonment, abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child.”
In Interest of FQ, 470 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Tammy L. D., 2000 WI App 200 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Termination of Parental Rights to Diana, 2005 WI 32 (Wis. 2005).
N.Q. v. Milwaukee Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 470 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(9) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Hughes v. Hughes, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
S. G. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Child. & Families (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(H) — 1 case
In Interest of Lauran F., 523 N.W.2d 290 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.13(l)(e) — 1 case
People in Interest of DK, 245 N.W.2d 644 (S.D. 1976).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.