Bindinglaw

WI · jury_instructions

Wis JI-Children 212

CHIPS: Relinquishment of custody of newborn child (Wis. Stat. § 48.13(2m))

activein force · 2024-07-01 – presentas-observed

The petition in this case alleges that the custody of (child) was relinquished by (his)

(her) parent(s). Your role as jurors will be to answer the following questions in the

special verdict:

1. Did (parent) relinquish custody of (child) to a (law enforcement officer)

(emergency medical technician) (hospital staff member) on (date) without

expressing an intent to return for the child?

If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” answer question 2:

2. At the time (he) (she) took custody of (child) on (date), did the (law enforcement

officer) (emergency medical technician) (hospital staff member) reasonably

believe that (child) was 72 hours old or younger?

The burden of proof is on (petitioner) to convince you by evidence that is clear,

satisfactory, and convincing, to a reasonable certainty, that the questions should be

answered “yes.”

The term “relinquish custody” means to give the child to a (law enforcement officer)

(emergency medical technician) (hospital staff member) or leave the child with such a

person. [A parent may relinquish custody directly or with the assistance of (another) (other)

person(s).]

In answering question 1, you should consider whether (parent) made or gave any

verbal or written statement or any other form of expression indicating an intent to return

for (child).

In answering question 2, you should consider the age and appearance of (child) at the

time the (law enforcement officer, emergency medical technician, or hospital staff

member) took (child) into custody. You should also consider any statement made to the

(law enforcement officer, emergency medical technician, or hospital staff member) by the

parent (or person assisting the parent) about the age of the child.

SPECIAL VERDICT

1. Did (parent) relinquish custody of (child) to a (law enforcement officer)

(emergency medical technician) (hospital staff member) on (date) without

expressing an intent to return for the child?

Answer:__________________

Yes or No

If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” answer question 2:

2. At the time (he) (she) took custody of (child) on (date), did the (law enforcement

officer) (emergency medical technician) (hospital staff member) reasonably

believe that (child) was 72 hours old or younger?

Answer:__________________

Yes or No

History

Wis JI-Children 212 (7/2024). Release No. 3. Wisconsin Court System, 7/2024. Prepared by the Wisconsin Jury Instructions Committees of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.

Provenance

Source
wilawlibrary.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-24
Edition
2026-09-24
Content hash
fd7deecc3ec7ff597e256db8d18d66ac2b52a439b4f8cc5f19d7302137649708
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.