Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2026)
Standard and factors
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
48.426(1)(1) Court considerations. In making a decision about the appropriate disposition under s. 48.427, the court shall consider the standard and factors enumerated in this section and any report submitted by an agency under s. 48.425.
48.426(2)(2) Standard. The best interests of the child shall be the prevailing factor considered by the court in determining the disposition of all proceedings under this subchapter.
48.426(3)(3) Factors. In considering the best interests of the child under this section the court shall consider but not be limited to the following:
48.426(3)(b)(b) The age and health of the child, both at the time of the disposition and, if applicable, at the time the child was removed from the home.
48.426(3)(c)(c) Whether the child has substantial relationships with the parent or other family members, and whether it would be harmful to the child to sever these relationships.
48.426(3)(f)(f) Whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of the termination, taking into account the conditions of the child’s current placement, the likelihood of future placements and the results of prior placements.
48.426 AnnotationWhen grandparents opposing termination had a substantial relationship with the child and wished to participate in the proceedings, it was error to exclude their testimony in determining the child’s best interest. David S. v. Laura S., 179 Wis. 2d 114, 507 N.W.2d 94 (1993).
48.426 AnnotationA termination of parental rights works a legal severance of the relationship between the child and the child’s birth family. Sub. (3) (c) requires an examination of the harmful effect of the legal severance on the child’s relationships with the birth family. The court may consider an adoptive parent’s promise to continue the relationship, but it is not bound to hinge its determination on that legally unenforceable promise. State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, 99-1441.
48.426 AnnotationAt the plea hearing in this case, the circuit court properly informed the parent that the prevailing factor at disposition is the statutory standard under sub. (2): “the best interests of the child.” While the court did explain that the parent would have the “same rights” at the dispositional phase as the parent had at the grounds phase, the court never referred to the burden of proof at the grounds phase as a “right.” The record reflects that the circuit court did not characterize the clear and convincing burden of proof applicable at grounds as a trial right that would be applicable at disposition. State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 412 Wis. 2d 364, 8 N.W.3d 22, 22-1329.
48.426 AnnotationThe best interests of the child factor governing the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights proceeding constitutes a discretionary determination by the circuit court, and the statute places no burden of proof on a particular party. State v. H.C., 2025 WI 20, 416 Wis. 2d 233, 21 N.W.3d 330, 23-1950.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 202
cases (140 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024).
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42 (Wis. 2000). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (3). ¶ 12. After noting that the circuit court had failed to consider the entire range of factors enumerated under Wis.”
Sheboygan Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95 (Wis. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (1) and (2) (emphasis added).”
Steven v. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2). "The outcome of this hearing is not predetermined, but the focus shifts to the interests of the child.”
State v. A. G., 2023 WI 61 (Wis. 2023). “Accordingly, the court did exactly what A.G. claims the court told him it would do.”
Evelyn C. R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110 (Wis. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 . However, the parent's rights are not ignored.”
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025). “6 § 48.426. Any party may present relevant evidence7 and make alternative dispositional recommendations.”
State v. Allen M., 571 N.W.2d 872 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “See § 48.426, STATS. As the supreme court explained: This means that even though the jury finds the "facts" that would constitute grounds for termination, the court may still dismiss the petition if the court finds either that the evidence does not sustain any one of the jury's…”
Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30 (Wis. 2007). “2d 1, ¶27 (citing Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2)). While the central focus of the court proceeding is now on the best interests of the child, the parent's rights are not ignored.”
In Interest of Christopher D., 530 N.W.2d 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Section 48.426(2), STATS. The trial court reviewed the non-exclusive list of best interest factors contained in § 48.”
Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T., 2011 WI 30 (Wis. 2011). “See also, Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2). If the court finds a termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest, termination should be ordered.”
Gerald O. v. Cindy R., 551 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “1989); § 48.426, Stats. The determination of a child's best interests in a termination proceeding depends on firsthand observation and experience with the persons involved and, therefore, is left to the discretion of the trial court.”
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(1) — 7 cases
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025). “6 § 48.426. Any party may present relevant evidence7 and make alternative dispositional recommendations.”
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025).
State v. S. A. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Dane Cnty. DHS v. T. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
Sheboygan Cnty. DH & HS v. S.K. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(2) — 95 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
In Interest of Christopher D., 530 N.W.2d 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Section 48.426(2), STATS. The trial court reviewed the non-exclusive list of best interest factors contained in § 48.”
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025). “6 § 48.426. Any party may present relevant evidence7 and make alternative dispositional recommendations.”
State v. Allen M., 571 N.W.2d 872 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “See § 48.426, STATS. As the supreme court explained: This means that even though the jury finds the "facts" that would constitute grounds for termination, the court may still dismiss the petition if the court finds either that the evidence does not sustain any one of the jury's…”
State v. A. G., 2023 WI 61 (Wis. 2023). “Accordingly, the court did exactly what A.G. claims the court told him it would do.”
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3) — 135 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
Sheboygan Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Julie A.B., 2002 WI 95 (Wis. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (1) and (2) (emphasis added).”
Steven v. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2). "The outcome of this hearing is not predetermined, but the focus shifts to the interests of the child.”
State v. H. C., 2025 WI 20 (Wis. 2025). “6 § 48.426. Any party may present relevant evidence7 and make alternative dispositional recommendations.”
In Interest of Christopher D., 530 N.W.2d 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Section 48.426(2), STATS. The trial court reviewed the non-exclusive list of best interest factors contained in § 48.”
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(a) — 27 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Wood Cnty. DHS v. P. M. P. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Portage Cnty. DH&HS v. C. Z. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Dane Cnty. DHS v. S. M. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(b) — 14 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Portage Cnty. DH&HS v. C. Z. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Dane Cnty. DHS v. T. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. M. K. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(c) — 34 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
Brown Cnty. Health & Human Servs. v. J. L. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
Jefferson Cnty. DHS v. G. J. J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
Dane Cnty. DHS v. T. R. (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
Waukesha Cnty. DH&HS v. A. T. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(d) — 16 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
State v. S. O. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. M. M. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. T.E.-P. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. A.P. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(e) — 13 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. M. M. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. T. T. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. D.W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. T.E.-P. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3)(f) — 15 cases
State v. B. W., 2024 WI 28 (Wis. 2024). “Wis. Stat. § 48.426 (2); Evelyn C.R., 246 Wis.”
Marquette Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. M. M. B. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Winnebago Cnty. DHS v. C. R. Q., II (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. T. T. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 48.426(c) — 2 cases
Dane Cnty. DHS v. J. K. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Jackson Cnty. DHS v. R. H. H. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
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.