For over three decades, Wisconsin law has required the Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide programming that allows incarcerated mothers to maintain physical custody of their infants in the first year of their lives. Yet until now, this mandate has gone unfulfilled.

Alyssa's story reveals the human cost of this systemic failure.

While serving a two-year sentence at Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center in Union Grove, Wisconsin, Alyssa experienced pregnancy and gave birth while incarcerated. "When I would go from the county jail for appointments, I would be handcuffed. I would sit in the waiting room of my doctor's office in orange," she recalls, describing the indignity of prenatal care while visibly incarcerated.

During labor, male guards were present until right before it was time to push. While giving birth, Alyssa didn’t know anyone in the room. Then, just one day after giving birth to her son Bentley, Alyssa was forced to part ways with him. 

"That's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my life," Alyssa recounts. "I've been with my other children for this part of their life, and now I'm not with Bentley — and it's heartbreaking."

This separation wasn't just emotionally devastating – it was illegal. Wisconsin statute 301.049, established in 1991, explicitly requires the DOC to offer programming allowing incarcerated mothers physical custody of their infants in the least restrictive setting. The Wisconsin Legislature has allocated funds for this Mother-Young Child Care Program annually. “I would’ve been able to create the bond and get to know him.”

Hope emerged when a fellow incarcerated person discovered the statute and shared it with Alyssa. "She found it and showed it to me and I took it to my public defender," Alyssa explains. "Then, she finally got us in touch with the ACLU."

Despite this legal right, DOC officials denied Alyssa's application, claiming the statute was "outdated and unfunded." Meanwhile, the separation took its toll: "I'm watching my child grow up in pictures. He's almost 18 months, and he doesn't say ‘mom’."

On February 6, 2025, justice arrived when a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the ACLU of Wisconsin's lawsuit against the DOC. The court determined that the department must immediately implement the Mother-Young Child Care program for all eligible mothers.

"We are pleased that the court agreed with us and impacted mothers in this state," said Ryan Cox, Legal Director at the ACLU of Wisconsin. "By denying parents this opportunity, the DOC has continued to violate the law and deprive parents and their young children of a chance to build strong relationships."

This landmark victory means mothers will finally have access to programming that allows them to parent their children under the age of one – maintaining crucial early bonds that benefit both parent and child.

Alyssa's courage has opened doors for thousands of justice-impacted Wisconsin families. While the immediate ruling provides a court order mandating the DOC to implement the Mother-Young Child Care Program in Wisconsin, there is more work to be done to ensure incarcerated mothers are provided safe, stable ways to connect with their children in the first year of their life.

Learn more about the legal case, our Pregnant in Prison campaign, or our work for criminal legal reform.

 

Date

Monday, March 10, 2025 - 5:00pm

Featured image

mother's hand separated from child's hand

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Police, Prisons, and Criminal Law Reform

Show related content

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Description

Featured video

In anticipation of the April 1, 2025 election, the ACLU of Wisconsin sent a questionnaire to the two candidates running for Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding their background, access to justice, and civil rights and liberties. Candidate responses are listed below.

The ACLU of Wisconsin does not endorse or oppose candidates. We want every eligible voter to cast an informed vote.

1. Describe two or three important cases on which you have worked and explain their significance to you, your client, or the law's development.

Susan Crawford: As a judge, the most significant cases I have presided over involve children and families. In cases involving children in need of protection and services, I had the opportunity and privilege to reunite children with their families after the parents received court-ordered services to help them to overcome problems like mental health crises and drug addiction that had prevented them from caring for their children.

As a lawyer, I litigated several high-profile public interest cases that broadly impacted the rights of Wisconsinites. One such case was Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel. Our team of lawyers successfully challenged an anti-abortion law that threatened doctors with the loss of their medical licenses for providing abortions to women. The law was found unconstitutional by the federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin and the decision was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond

2. What do you consider the worst Wisconsin or U.S. Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years and why?

Susan Crawford: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs overturned nearly 50 years of constitutionally–protected rights. I disagree with this decision, which I believe marks the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever reversed its own long-standing precedent recognizing constitutional rights. The court should not be in the business of taking rights away from people.

Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond

3. What barriers prevent the promise of equal justice under the law from being realized for all Wisconsinites? How does this impact public trust and confidence in our legal system?

Susan Crawford: The most significant obstacle is the lack of affordable legal services to people facing significant legal issues without representation. Although as a judge I take care to explain courtroom procedures to pro se litigants, many civil cases, including evictions, family court matters, and mortgage foreclosures involve complex legal issues that place unrepresented parties at a disadvantage. As a judge, I’ve seen firsthand how the lack of representation affects parties and the legal system. Low or no-cost legal representation or legal clinics, simplified court procedures and forms, and better access to quality legal research materials could help reduce these disadvantages. If elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I’ll advocate for increased resources to serve Wisconsinites fairly and effectively.

Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond

4. How would you characterize the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s role in protecting people’s civil rights and liberties?

Susan Crawford: I strongly believe that one of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s primary purposes is to protect and uphold the rights of citizens recognized under our Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions. This includes closely scrutinizing governmental actions that are alleged to infringe on constitutional protections.

Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond

5. In your opinion, what purpose do the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution serve in modern society?

Susan Crawford: These important amendments operate as a check on law enforcement and other governmental power to invade the private sphere of decisions. As a judge, I have observed law enforcement’s ever-increasing reliance on digital evidence from the devices most of us constantly carry, and public surveillance footage (such as security cameras), to investigate crime. Technological developments such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition software threaten to further expand the reach of the government into our personal lives. Citizens unwittingly hand over huge amounts of data about their lives to corporations, not realizing that the same data may be subject to governmental searches. The courts must keep abreast of technological developments, and interpret the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to check these intrusions and maintain a zone of privacy in our daily lives.

Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond

Date

Wednesday, March 5, 2025 - 5:00pm

Featured image

WI Supreme Court Election April 1 Susan Crawford vs Brad Schimel

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

23

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Wisconsin RSS