Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Senate Bill 502

Case planning for a child placed in out-of-home care, including concurrent permanency goals, trial reunifications, and planned permanent living arrangements for such a child

Topics: Children, Children and Families, Department of, Children: Protection and services, County: Human services, Family, Guardian and ward, Juvenile court

Became law

The governor signed it on Apr 3, 2012. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 21, 2012

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed Mar 13, 2012

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Mar 15, 2012

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2011 Wisconsin Act 181

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 5, 2012: “Published 4-16-2012”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it does

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Introduction Under current law, for each child living in an out-of-home placement, the county department of human services or social services, the licensed child welfare agency, or the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that placed the child or arranged the placement of the child or the agency assigned primary responsibility for providing services to the child (collectively "agency") must prepare a permanency plan for the child. A permanency plan must describe, among other things, the goal or goals of the permanency plan, with those goals being either the safe return of the child to his or her home or placement of the child for adoption, with a guardian, with a fit and willing relative, or in some other alternative permanent placement, such as sustaining care, independent living, or long-term foster care.

This bill changes the term "permanency plan" to "case plan" and makes certain other changes relating to case planning for a child placed in out-of-home care, including changes relating to: 1) concurrent planning; 2) trial reunifications; and 3) planned permanent living arrangements, for such a child.

Read the full summary

Concurrent planning Under current law, an agency, at the same time as the agency is making reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from his or her home or to make it possible for the child to return home, may work with an adoption agency in making reasonable efforts to place the child for adoption, with a guardian, with a fit and willing relative, or in some other alternative permanent placement (concurrent reasonable efforts). If an agency is making concurrent reasonable efforts, the child's permanency plan must include the goals of the permanency plan.

This bill eliminates the authority of an agency to make concurrent reasonable efforts and instead permits an agency to engage in concurrent planning, which the bill defines as reasonable efforts to work simultaneously towards achieving more than one permanency goal for a child. Under the bill, an agency must determine, in accordance with standards established by DCF (concurrent planning standards) whether to engage in concurrent planning. If, according to the concurrent planning standards, concurrent planning is required, the agency must engage in concurrent planning and the juvenile court must make a finding as to whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to achieve the primary goal of the concurrent plan. If an agency determines to engage in concurrent planning for a child, the child's case plan must include the rationale for that determination and a description of the concurrent plan and the primary and concurrent goals of the concurrent plan. In addition, if a child's case plan calls for concurrent planning, the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Code and the Juvenile Justice Code (juvenile court) or a case plan review panel appointed by the juvenile court, in reviewing the child's case plan, must determine the appropriateness, in light of the concurrent planning standards, of each of the permanency goals of the concurrent plan and, if the juvenile court or case plan review panel does not approve of any one or more of those goals, that court or panel must include in its determinations the reasons for that disapproval.

Trial reunifications Current law — changes in placement.

Under current law, the juvenile court, on the request of the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing a dispositional order, of the juvenile court, may order a change in placement for a child placed outside of his or her home under a dispositional order of the juvenile court. The juvenile court may order the change in placement without a hearing, unless a party receiving the notice files an objection. Current law also permits the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order to make an emergency change in placement if emergency conditions necessitate an immediate change in placement.

The bill — trial reunifications.

This bill provides a similar procedure under which the juvenile court may order a trial reunification, which the bill defines as a return of a child who is placed in an out-of-home placement to the home of his or her parent or other home from which the child was removed for a specified and limited period for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of permanently returning the child to that home. The bill, however, does not permit an emergency trial reunification. Under the bill, if an emergency condition necessitates an immediate return of a child to the home of his or her parent or other home from which the child was removed, the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order must make an emergency change in placement as provided under current law.

Under the bill, the juvenile court may order a trial reunification on the request of the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order, or on its own motion. Notice of the proposed trial reunification must 1) be provided to the child, the parent, guardian, and legal custodian of the child, any foster parent or other physical custodian of the child, the child's court-appointed special advocate, all parties who are bound by the dispositional order, and, in the case of an Indian child, the Indian child's Indian custodian and tribe; and 2) contain a statement describing why the trial reunification is in the best interests of the child and a statement describing how the trial reunification satisfies the objectives of the child's case plan. The juvenile court may order the trial reunification without a hearing, unless a party receiving the notice files an objection.

If the juvenile court finds that the trial reunification is in the best interests of the child and that the trial reunification satisfies the objectives of the child's case plan, the juvenile court must grant an order authorizing the trial reunification. A trial reunification terminates 90 days after the date of the order, unless the juvenile court specifies a shorter period in the order, extends the trial reunification, or revokes the trial reunification or the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order makes an emergency change in placement. At the end of a trial reunification, the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order may return the child to an out-of-home placement without further order of the juvenile court or may request the juvenile court to order a change in placement changing the placement of the child to the home or his or her parent or other home from which the child was removed.

The bill also permits the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order to request an extension of the trial reunification. The request must contain a statement describing how the trial reunification continues to be in the best interests of the child and continues to meet the objectives of the child's case plan, and the same notice and hearing requirements that apply to an original request for a trial reunification also apply to a request for an extension of a trial reunification.

If the juvenile court finds that the trial reunification continues to be in the best interests of the child and continues to meet the objectives of the child's case plan, the juvenile court must grant an order extending the trial reunification for a period specified by the juvenile court not to exceed 60 days. Any number of extensions may be granted, but the total period for a trial reunification may not exceed 150 days.

In addition, the bill permits the person or agency primarily responsible for implementing the dispositional order to request the juvenile court to revoke a trial reunification if that person or agency has reasonable cause to suspect that a child who has been returned to the home of his or her parent or other home from which the child was removed for a trial reunification has been abused or neglected, has reason to believe that such a child has been threatened with abuse or neglect and that abuse or neglect of the child is likely to occur, or otherwise has reason to believe that the trial reunification is no longer in the best interest of the child. The revocation request must state the reasons for the proposed revocation, and the same notice and hearing requirements that apply to an original request for a trial reunification also apply to a request for a revocation of a trial reunification. If the juvenile court finds that the child, while returned to the home of his or her parent or other home from which the child was removed for a trial reunification, has been abused or neglected, or has been threatened with abuse or neglect and that abuse or neglect of the child is likely to occur, or finds that the trial reunification is no longer in the best interests of the child, the juvenile court must grant an order revoking the trial reunification and returning the child to an out-of-home placement.

Finally, with respect to trial reunifications, the bill permits the person or agency primarily responsible or implementing the dispositional order to make an emergency change in placement if emergency conditions necessitate an immediate removal of the child from the home of his or her parent or other home from which the child has been removed.

Other planned permanent living arrangement Under current law, if a goal of a child's permanency plan is an alternative permanent placement, the permanency plan must document a compelling reason why it would not be in the best interests of the child to pursue the safe return of the child to his or her home or placement of the child for adoption, with a guardian, or with a fit and willing relative.

This bill changes the term "alternative permanent placement" to "other planned permanent living arrangement,", requires the arrangement to include a long-term relationship between the child and an adult, and eliminates independent living as a planned permanent living arrangement option. The bill also permits a child's case plan to include the permanency goal of placement of the child in a planned permanent living arrangement only if the agency determines that there is a compelling reason why it would not be in the best interests of the child to pursue the safe return of the child to his or her home or placement of the child for adoption, with a guardian, or with a fit and willing relative. If an agency makes that determination, the child's case plan must include 1) a concurrent plan towards achieving the permanency goal of safely returning the child to his or her home or placing the child for adoption, with a guardian, or with a fit and willing relative as well as the permanency goal of placing the child in some other planned permanent living arrangement; and 2) the compelling reason why it would not be in the best interests of the child to return the child to his or her home or to place the child for adoption, with a guardian, or with a fit and willing relative and the efforts made to achieve that goal, including, if appropriate, through an out-of-state placement.

Who's behind it

Mary Lazich, a Republican, is its ⁠.

4 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 5 names

Author (1)

Signed on in support (4)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Senate Committee on Public Health vote to recommend it

Passed, 4 to 1 · Mar 5, 2012

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue, Ayes 4, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 5, 2012

    The new law was published.

  2. Apr 3, 2012

    The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 181.

  3. Mar 30, 2012

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Mar 15, 2012

    The Assembly passed it too.

  5. Mar 13, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Mar 13, 2012

    The Assembly received it.

  7. Mar 13, 2012

    The Senate passed it.

  8. Mar 13, 2012

    The Senate adopted it.

  9. Mar 5, 2012

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 1.

  10. Mar 2, 2012

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  11. Feb 29, 2012

    The committee held a public hearing.

  12. Feb 21, 2012

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue.

  13. Feb 21, 2012

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 21, 2012 · Senate

    Introduced by Senator Lazich;Cosponsored by Representatives Kerkman, Grigsby, Loudenbeck and Spanbauer

  2. Feb 21, 2012 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue

  3. Feb 29, 2012 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  4. Mar 2, 2012 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Mar 3, 2012 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  6. Mar 5, 2012 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue, Ayes 4, Noes 1

  7. Mar 5, 2012 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  8. Mar 7, 2012 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Lazich

  9. Mar 12, 2012 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Lazich

  10. Mar 12, 2012 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-13-2012 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  11. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Read a second time

  12. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 adopted

  13. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 adopted

  14. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  15. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  16. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed

  17. Mar 13, 2012 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  18. Mar 13, 2012 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  19. Mar 13, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  20. Mar 13, 2012 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 9:25 A.M. on 3-14-2012 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 24

  21. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  22. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  23. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  24. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in

  25. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  26. Mar 19, 2012 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  27. Mar 26, 2012 · Senate

    LRB correction

  28. Mar 26, 2012 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-26-2012

  29. Mar 30, 2012 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 3-30-2012

  30. Apr 3, 2012 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 4-2-2012. 2011 Wisconsin Act 181

  31. Apr 5, 2012 · Senate

    Published 4-16-2012

Terms on this page

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote