Judicial Disparities, Guardians ad Litem, and the Question of Fairness in Wisconsin Family Courts

Across Wisconsin, family court decisions continue to reveal a deep imbalance in custody outcomes between mothers and fathers. While state law defines placement as gender-neutral, data suggest otherwise. Fathers frequently report losing primary placement or decision-making rights despite being active and fit parents. This disparity has prompted growing calls for reform and accountability, not just for judges but also for the guardians ad litem (GALs) who influence these decisions behind closed doors.

The Uneven Scales of Custody

Nationally, research from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that approximately 79% of custodial parents are mothers, while only 21% are fathers. Wisconsin has no public dataset showing how custody orders break down by gender, but anecdotal evidence and numerous appeals indicate similar trends. Advocates for family court reform argue that this imbalance is not a reflection of parental capability but of systemic bias, a bias reinforced by judicial discretion and GAL recommendations that often go unchallenged.

While other states, such as Arizona and Kentucky, have implemented presumptive 50/50 custody laws, Wisconsin remains among the states where judges have wide latitude to determine “the best interest of the child.” Critics argue that this phrase, although well-intentioned, is so broad that it allows personal bias to infiltrate rulings, especially when one parent, typically the father, is already perceived as less nurturing or less stable.

When Oversight Fails: The Role of Guardians ad Litem

Guardians ad litem in Wisconsin wield significant power. Appointed to represent the “best interests” of the child, GALs investigate families, interview children, and make recommendations that judges often adopt wholesale. Yet unlike judges, their accountability mechanisms are thin.

A 2019 proposal before the Wisconsin Legislature called for stronger training requirements for GALs, including mandatory education in mental health and domestic violence. But those proposals did not address the larger issue: the lack of transparency and public oversight.

Wisconsin publishes no comprehensive data on how many GALs are disciplined, how often their recommendations are challenged, or whether their actions disproportionately harm one gender of parent.

In Ethics Opinion EF-23-02 (2025), the State Bar of Wisconsin acknowledged these risks, clarifying that GALs must adhere to attorney ethics rules and avoid conflicts of interest. Yet, real-world oversight remains minimal, leaving families at the mercy of individual judgment calls.

Judicial Oversight and the Broader System

Instances of questionable judicial conduct in family court, such as those attributed to Judge Carey Reed, raise deeper questions about how much unchecked power individual actors hold over parents’ constitutional rights. But judges are only one part of a larger system that determines custody outcomes. Another key area of concern is the role and accountability of guardians ad litem (GALs), individuals tasked with representing the best interests of the child, yet operating with little oversight.

Public Perception and Guardian ad Litem Accountability

Guardians ad litem in Wisconsin wield significant influence over child custody outcomes, often shaping judicial decisions that determine a child’s future. Despite this authority, their work remains largely shielded from public scrutiny. This lack of transparency has led to increasing concern over fairness, consistency, and potential bias within the family court system.

A recurring example can be found in the public record of attorney Deborah Mancoske, a long-serving GAL who has drawn widespread attention online for consistent complaints from both mothers and fathers. Across more than ten public Google reviews, parents have reported troubling experiences that question her professionalism and impartiality.

One review stated:

“She took well over 230 days in my case to do a recommendation. She appeared in the courtroom and said things that were never communicated on my end… consistently putting blame on me that she was not able to finish her job.”

Another wrote:

“She exhibits extremely rude, unprofessional, and unethical conduct. It’s disheartening to know that someone entrusted with such an important role within the judicial system abuses her power and demonstrates clear bias. She falsifies information and representations, which further raises concerns about her integrity.”

And a third, from one of her own clients, claimed:

“She had been lying on my behalf and even making false statements about me when I was her client.”

While online reviews alone do not amount to official findings of misconduct, the consistency of these public complaints underscores a larger systemic flaw: Wisconsin’s family courts lack any meaningful oversight mechanism for GALs. Under Wis. Stat. § 767.407, GALs are legally required to conduct independent investigations and act solely in the child’s best interest. Yet, when those duties are neglected or performed with bias, parents have limited avenues to challenge the results or seek accountability.

These reviews also highlight a consistent pattern of public concern surrounding bias, incomplete investigations, and potential misstatements in court filings. In one family court case, these same concerns were reportedly brought before Judge Carey Reed, who preemptively dismissed motions addressing Mancoske’s alleged misconduct. That decision effectively denied a parent the right to petition the court, a constitutionally protected activity, and allowed Mancoske’s appointment to proceed uncontested.

Adding to the controversy, Judge Reed initially denied her appointment before reversing course and approving it without a hearing, raising serious due process questions.

Barriers to Access: Transparency Denied

While reform discussions often focus on bias or the lack of oversight for guardians ad litem, another equally damaging problem lies in how information is controlled within family court, especially for pro se litigants, or those representing themselves without an attorney. Access to transcripts, filings, and records is essential to ensuring fairness, yet in some courts, that access is obstructed or selectively denied.

In Calumet County, Judge Carey Reed has become a central figure in this ongoing concern. In several instances, records show that Reed denied transcript requests and access to case files for a pro se parent litigating his custody case, even after the parent filed a verified indigency affidavit. Those denials directly contradict Wisconsin’s own open records principles and the constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.

Such actions not only limit a parent’s ability to appeal or seek meaningful review but also shield the court’s own errors from scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has long emphasized that transparency is fundamental to the integrity of the judicial system. Yet when judges selectively deny access to court transcripts, documents that belong to the public record, it raises serious questions about impartiality and accountability.

Cases like Dane County v. Gableman have affirmed that judges are not immune from scrutiny or contempt findings when they defy procedural transparency. In that case, the court recognized that even members of the judiciary are bound by the same standards of openness they impose on others. When compared to Judge Reed’s record of refusing transcript access, the parallel becomes troubling: transparency is being treated as optional, and constitutional rights as negotiable.

For parents representing themselves, especially fathers navigating complex family court systems already perceived as biased, this lack of access creates an almost insurmountable barrier. Without transcripts, they cannot properly appeal rulings, file accurate complaints, or demonstrate patterns of judicial or GAL misconduct. It is a quiet but devastating form of obstruction, one that undermines faith in the entire process.

This behavior doesn’t just affect one parent or one case. It speaks to a broader culture of control within family courts, where judges and court-appointed professionals operate with near-total discretion and minimal oversight. Reforming Wisconsin’s custody system therefore requires not only better standards for GALs and equitable custody laws, but also a fundamental commitment to transparency, access, and constitutional accountability.

The Call for Reform in the United States

Several states have begun reforming custody laws to ensure fairness and transparency.

• Kentucky (2018) became the first state to enact a presumption of equal shared parenting, drastically reducing litigation and bias complaints.

• Florida (2023) followed suit with legislation supporting 50/50 custody as a baseline.

• Arizona has long required judges to document reasons for deviating from equal placement, creating a record of accountability Wisconsin currently lacks.

Reform advocates say Wisconsin should follow this trend, both to reduce gender bias and to restore trust in a system too often viewed as adversarial and opaque.

Wisconsin must establish clearer standards, oversight, and accountability for both GALs and judges in family court. Without it, the state risks perpetuating structural inequities, particularly for fathers, who statistically receive less favorable custody outcomes. Cases like Mancoske’s, combined with judicial actions that prevent legitimate complaints from being heard, demonstrate how unchecked discretion can erode public confidence and constitutional fairness.

Until these gaps are addressed through legislation, training, and independent review, Wisconsin’s family court system will continue to face the same criticisms now echoing in public records and online forums across the state.

Conclusion

Wisconsin’s family courts remain a battleground where justice can feel arbitrary. Fathers continue to face uphill battles for equal custody, GALs operate with limited oversight, and judges maintain near-absolute discretion in interpreting “the best interest of the child.”

If the state truly values fairness, it must introduce transparency measures, publish GAL performance data, create statewide custody statistics, and hold judges accountable for constitutional violations. Until then, families will continue to question whether the system serves justice or merely preserves its own authority.

***VBNN did reach out to judge Carey Reed for comment on the allegations against him. We have yet to get a response***