im trying to read this and understand it by I stand underneath it and dont get it lol....It seems there needs to be evidence involved for the court to consider Abuse.....but i dunno if ya got a minute lemme knw..
The parties will not be able to cooperate in the future decision
making required under an award of joint legal custody. In
making this finding the court shall consider, along with any other
pertinent items, any reasons offered by a party objecting to joint
legal custody. Evidence that either party engaged in abuse, as
defined in s. 813.122 (1) (a), of the child, as defined in s. 48.02 (2),
or evidence of interspousal battery, as described under s. 940.19
or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1)
(am), creates a rebuttable presumption that the parties will not be
able to cooperate in the future decision making required.
(c) Except as provided in par. (d), the court may not give sole
legal custody to a parent who refuses to cooperate with the other
parent if the court finds that the refusal to cooperate is unreasonable.
(d) 1. Except as provided in subd. 4., if the court finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that a party has engaged in a pattern
or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described under s.
940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12
(1) (am), pars. (am), (b), and (c) do not apply and there is a rebuttable
presumption that it is detrimental to the child and contrary
to the best interest of the child to award joint or sole legal custody
to that party. The presumption under this subdivision may be
rebutted only by a preponderance of evidence of all of the following:
a. The party who committed the battery or abuse has successfully
completed treatment for batterers provided through a certified
treatment program or by a certified treatment provider and is
not abusing alcohol or any other drug.
b. It is in the best interest of the child for the party who committed
the battery or abuse to be awarded joint or sole legal custody
based on a consideration of the factors under sub. (5) (am).
2. If the court finds under subd. 1. that both parties engaged
in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, as described
under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in
s. 813.12 (1) (am), the party who engaged in the battery or abuse
for purposes of the presumption under subd. 1. is the party that the
court determines was the primary physical aggressor. Except as
provided in subd. 3., in determining which party was the primary
physical aggressor, the court shall consider all of the following:
a. Prior acts of domestic violence between the parties.
b. The relative severity of the injuries, if any, inflicted upon
a party by the other party in any of the prior acts of domestic violence
under subd. 2. a.
c. The likelihood of future injury to either of the parties resulting
from acts of domestic violence.
d. Whether either of the parties acted in self−defense in any
of the prior acts of domestic violence under subd. 2. a.
e. Whether there is or has been a pattern of coercive and abusive
behavior between the parties.
f. Any other factor that the court considers relevant to the
determination under this subdivision.
3. If the court must determine under subd. 2. which party was
the primary physical aggressor and one, but not both, of the parties
has been convicted of a crime that was an act of domestic abuse,
as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), with respect to the other party, the
court shall find the party who was convicted of the crime to be the
primary physical aggressor.
