Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (2026)

Short title; purposes; construction of provisions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

822.01822.01 Short title; purposes; construction of provisions.

822.01(1)(1) This chapter may be cited as the “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.”

822.01(2)(2) The general purposes of this chapter are to do all of the following:

822.01(2)(a)(a) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody that have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being.

822.01(2)(b)(b) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to the end that a custody decree is rendered in the state that can best decide the case in the interest of the child.

822.01(2)(c)(c) Discourage the use of the interstate system for continuing controversies over child custody.

822.01(2)(d)(d) Deter abductions of children.

822.01(2)(e)(e) Avoid relitigation in this state of custody decisions of other states.

822.01(2)(f)(f) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states.

822.01 HistoryHistory: 2005 a. 130.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R., 2003 WI 61 (Wis. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R., 2003 WI 61 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 22× “" Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (1)(a) and (c). [8] Moreover, "jurisdiction exists only if it is in the child's interest, not merely the interest or convenience of the feuding parties, to determine *233 custody in a particular state.”

People v. Arthur H., 819 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 2× “2003)); see also Wis. Stat. Ann. § 822.01 et seq. (West Supp.”

In Re Custody of Kalbes, 2007 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “" Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (2)(a)-(b). This argument ignores the overall purpose and structure of the Uniform Act.”

Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Mother argues a minor child less than six months old, who has not lived exclusively in one state, has no “home state” pursuant to UCCJEA.”

In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 4× “See generally sec. 822.01(1), Stats. Wisconsin's exercise or jurisdiction would not contravene any of these purposes.”

Vorpahl v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “4 Section 822.01 (1) (e), Stats. 5 Commissioner's Notes to UCCJA §3, supra note 3.”

In Re Marriage of Michalik v. Michalik, 494 N.W.2d 391 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 2× “Section 822.01(1) sets forth the purposes of the Wisconsin Act: Purposes; construction of provisions.”

In Re Marriage of Thompson, 384 N.W.2d 713 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “1 Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 822.01 to 822.25 (West 1977).”

P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 4× “See generally sec. 822.01(1), Stats. Wisconsin's exercise or jurisdiction would not contravene any of these purposes.”

In Re Custody of Sengstock, 477 N.W.2d 310 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “" Section 822.01(1)(h), Stats. A common thread throughout the UCCJA is the need for courts from different jurisdictions to assist each other in resolving custody proceedings.”

Paula M. S. v. Neal A. R., 593 N.W.2d 486 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Section 822.01, STATS. The Act attempts to fulfill these goals by promoting cooperation and the exchange of information among the courts of various states to ensure that custody decisions are litigated in the state best equipped to determine the best interests of the child.”

Colby v. Colby, 306 N.W.2d 57 (Wis. 1981). “If we had any doubts about the reasoning behind the Arizona court’s action, they would be dispelled by sec. 822.01, Stats. That section states, in part: “822.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(1) — 7 cases

Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R., 2003 WI 61 (Wis. 2003). “" Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (1)(a) and (c). [8] Moreover, "jurisdiction exists only if it is in the child's interest, not merely the interest or convenience of the feuding parties, to determine *233 custody in a particular state.”

In Re Marriage of Michalik v. Michalik, 494 N.W.2d 391 (Wis. 1993). “Section 822.01(1) sets forth the purposes of the Wisconsin Act: Purposes; construction of provisions.”

Vorpahl v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “4 Section 822.01 (1) (e), Stats. 5 Commissioner's Notes to UCCJA §3, supra note 3.”

In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See generally sec. 822.01(1), Stats. Wisconsin's exercise or jurisdiction would not contravene any of these purposes.”

In Re Marriage of Michalik v. Michalik, 476 N.W.2d 586 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(1)(a) — 1 case

Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R., 2003 WI 61 (Wis. 2003). “" Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (1)(a) and (c). [8] Moreover, "jurisdiction exists only if it is in the child's interest, not merely the interest or convenience of the feuding parties, to determine *233 custody in a particular state.”

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(1)(c) — 1 case

In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See generally sec. 822.01(1), Stats. Wisconsin's exercise or jurisdiction would not contravene any of these purposes.”

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(1)(h) — 1 case

In Re Custody of Sengstock, 477 N.W.2d 310 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “" Section 822.01(1)(h), Stats. A common thread throughout the UCCJA is the need for courts from different jurisdictions to assist each other in resolving custody proceedings.”

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(2)(a) — 4 cases

In Re Custody of Kalbes, 2007 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “" Wis. Stat. § 822.01 (2)(a)-(b). This argument ignores the overall purpose and structure of the Uniform Act.”

In re A. P., 928 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).

Jennifer Summerhill v. Dennis M. Lins (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).

R. G. v. S. P. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(l)(c) — 1 case

P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See generally sec. 822.01(1), Stats. Wisconsin's exercise or jurisdiction would not contravene any of these purposes.”

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(l)(e) — 1 case

In Re Marriage of Davidson v. Davidson, 485 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wis. Stat. § 822.01(l)(h) — 1 case

Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 477 N.W.2d 310 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

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.