Wisconsin DOC Ordered to Provide Programming for Pregnant Prisoners—34 Years After Law Was Passed
Wisconsin’s Department of Corrections (DOC) was ordered on February 25, 2025, to immediately implement policy changes placing pregnant prisoners in the least restrictive environment possible, as well as allowing them to be physically present with their newborns to provide care. Though state lawmakers had annually appropriated funds since passing an enabling statute in 1991, the DOC had never implemented a Mother-Young Child Care (MYCC) program for prisoners except those on supervised release.
That ended when the Writ of Mandamus from the state Circuit Court Branch 15 for Dane County—which includes the city of Madison—was issued, in a suit filed by prisoner Alyssa Puphal; she was separated from her son shortly after giving birth at Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center, where she was serving a two-year sentence. Over the next 10 months she was permitted less than 15 hours of contact in total with the child during four supervised visits.
A fellow prisoner found the MYCC law, Wis. Stat. § 301.049, and showed it to Puphal, who petitioned the DOC for admission to the program. Officials denied her request, calling the statutory mention of an MYCC program for prisoners “outdated” and “unfunded.” With the help of attorneys from the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Puphal filed suit; she was joined by fellow Plaintiff and fellow Ellsworth prisoner Natasha Curtin-Weber, who was pregnant and due in July 2025. Together they accused the DOC and Secretary Jared Hoy of violating the law, which required creation of a MYCC program for prisoners or those on supervised release.
At the circuit court, the DOC admitted that there was no such program for pregnant prisoners. But it claimed that lawmakers’ use of the word “or” in the statute gave it discretion to choose between aiding prisoners and aiding those on supervised release. In support, the DOC pointed to three private contractors paid to help some 224 parolees and probationers who gave birth in 2024. Judge Stephen Elke wasn’t buying that argument.
“If one were to replace ‘or’ with ‘and,’” he said, the statute would order the DOC to provide MYCC programming to “females who are prisoners; and on probation, extended supervision or parole.” However, the judge continued, “[t]his presents an impossibility,” since a pregnant woman in DOC custody “cannot both be a prisoner and on probation.” Moreover, “the legislature was presumably trying to help as many infants and mothers as it could, regardless of the mother’s status within DOC,” further eroding support for the DOC’s reading of the law.
Finding that Plaintiffs had identified “a clear legal right” that imposed a “a plain and positive duty” on the DOC, as well as “substantial damage or injury should the relief not be granted” and “no other adequate remedy at law,” the circuit court declared the criteria satisfied for a mandamus action and issued the writ. In addition to the ACLU, Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from Quarles & Brady LLP in Madison. See: Puphal v. Wisc. Dep’t of Corr., Wisc. Cir. Branch 15 (Dane Cty.), Case No. 2024CV001711.
No deadline was set for the DOC’s approximately two-dozen pregnant prisoners to get an MYCC program of their own. But ACLU Legal Director Ryan Cox promised to nag the circuit court until the DOC complied with the writ. “Considering that the [DOC] has already delayed implementation of the program for [nearly] 35 years, we’re kind of at the end of our patience,” he said.
Additional source: Wisconsin Public Radio
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login