8240 West Coventry Drive Franklin, WI 53132 Office of City Attorney Atty Grant Langley City Hall Room

800 200 East Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53202 December 30, 2012 Dear Atty. Langley, I do not understand the city's hostility toward my daughter, Stephanie, and my granddaughter, Sarah. I wrote last February (copy ofletter attached wlo attachments) asking the city to allow the court process to address the paternity of my granddaughter, Sarah instead of arguing the law in the street with 3 police officers carrying side-arms. The Waukesha County court had jurisdiction at that time. The Waukesha Court is messed up. I have attached portions of the online docket from the case (Waukesha 2006PA390PJ). In the month ofJune, 2012 there were 4 judges assigned to the case. One was the judge originally assigned who then recused himself. Another judge refused to be substituted. My daughter had to appeal to the chief judge to get the law enforced. In July venue was changed to Milwaukee. In September my daughter flied a motion to modify (2012FA5081). This was her first motion filed to modify. On December 26,2012 the same police officers, Sgt Kerhin, Officer Adameak, and Officer Claas came to my daughter's home to eventually arrest her and force a transfer without a court order expressly instructing them to do so as provided by 767.471(6). The order they cited is currently under appeal (2012AP646). My daughter was held in the Milwaukee County jail for 3 days before she saw the commissioner. At this time the city has taken the side of the adjudicated father. This is a serious matter. The adjudicated father has testified that he has suicide problems and that my daughter told him stop during the act of conception. I have attached a portion of the May 31, 2007 transcript. I have attached portions of the transcript of a psychologist explaining the serious mental health problems from which the adjudicated father suffers. No psychologist has refuted this diagnosis. On April 28, 2008 my daughter was illegally jailed in Waukesha County. I have attached the court order that shows that she was physically jailed and the remittitur that reversed the order that jailed her. Declaration: Under no circumstance is any statement, expressed or implied, by Gary Kramschuster to be taken to be a notification of misconduct to any law enforcement agency, what-so-ever, concerning Laura Schwefel (a/k/a Schwiesel). Gary Kramschuster further declares that he is making no statement, what-so-ever, that any individual contact a law enforcement agency concerning the conduct of Laura Schwefel. All statements concerning Laura Schwefel made by Gary 1

Kramschuster are true and correct. Gary Kramschuster acknowledges that, pursuant to decisions of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, Laura Schwefel is answerable to no one and to no law. Gary Kramschuster acknowledges that Laura Schwefel may commit any act without any legal restrictions, what-so-ever. The remitittur shows that both the adjudicated father and the lawyer acting in the role as the guardian ad litem were respondents. The lawyer acting in the role of guardian ad litem has an adverse decision in a matter where my daughterprevailed, At a hearing held October 28, 2011 the lawyer acting in the role of guardian ad litem stated in open court that she had the adjudicated father staying at her home over the weekend in August of2009. I have attached a portion of the Oct. 28 2011 transcript. This is the third time that Milwaukee police involved themselves into my daughter's placement problems with the adjudicated father. My granddaughters are fearful of the police and panic when they see a uniformed officer or police car. As I said in my last letter, placement matters are complicated, more so when the court is messed-up. Again the Milwaukee Police took it upon themselves to enforce law as they see fit, not as the law is. Paraphrasing Sgt Kerhin the technical details of law are not important. Do as the Milwaukee Police order or be arrested. I have also enclosed a DVD with both this years forced Christmas transfer and last years. Again, I am asking that the city police stop terrorizing my granddaughters but adding that they stop helping the adjudicated father continue his predation of my daughter. Reg,ards, ~
// ~

GUY'7
Enc Cc DVD of transfers Mayor Barrett Police Chief Flynn Sheriff Clark District Attorney Chisholm Police Sgt Kerhin

1)vvwrJ

"

Gary Kramschuster

8240 West Coventry Drive Franklin, WI 53132 Office of City Attorney Atty Grant Langley City Hall Room 800 200 East Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53202 February 9,2012 Dear Atty. Langley, Twice now I have met City of Milwaukee Police at my daughter's home dealing with a child placement problem while my daughter was at work. The police had been called by the adjudicated father. The last time the officers, in particular Sgt Kerhin, told me that they were enforcing a valid court order for placement. The court order presented did not expressly instruct the police to force the placement transfer. Further, there is no court order what-so-ever expressly instructing the police to enforce the placement order. As you know, in 2005 state law was changed such that child placement problems are to be argued in the courtroom and not in the street. Wis. Stat. 767.471 is specifically designed to address disputes over physical placement orders. It sets out the procedures a court must follow, the findings it must make, and the remedies it may grant-when the court finds that a parent has been denied placement by another parent. If a parent believes that they have been denied placement they may move for enforcement of a physical placement order under this statute. Wis. Stat. 767.471(5) addresses the hearing and remedies. It reads, HEARING; REMEDIES. (a) The court shall hold a hearing on the motion no later than 30 days after the motion has been served, unless the time is extended by mutual agreement of the parties or upon the motion of a guardian ad litem and the approval of the court. The court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, order that a guardian ad litem be appointed for the child prior to the hearing. (b) If at the conclusion of the hearing the court fmds that the responding party has intentionally and unreasonably denied the moving party one or more periods of physical placement or that the responding party has intentionally and unreasonably interfered with one or more of the moving party's periods of physical placement, the court: 1. Shall do all of the following: a. Issue an order granting additional periods of physical placement to replace those denied or interfered with. Award the moving party a reasonable amount for the cost of maintaining an action under this section and for attorney fees. 2. May do one or more of the following: a. If the underlying order or judgment relating to periods of physical placement does not provide for specific times for the exercise of periods of physical placement, issue an order specifying

the times for the exercise of periods of physical placement. b. Find the responding party in contempt of court under ch. 785. c. Grant an injunction ordering the responding party to strictly comply with the judgment or order relating to the award of physical placement. In determining whether to issue an injunction, the court shall consider whether alternative remedies requested by the moving party would be as effective in obtaining compliance with the order or judgment relating to physical placement. (c) If at the conclusion of the hearing the court fmds that the moving party has incurred a financial loss or expenses as a result of the responding party's failure, intentionally and unreasonably and without adequate notice to the moving party, to exercise one or more periods of physical placement under an order allocating specific times for the exercise of periods of physical placement, the court may issue an order requiring the responding party to pay to the moving party a sum of money sufficient to compensate the moving party for the financial loss or expenses. (d) Except as provided in par. (b) 1. a. and 2. a., the court may not modify an order of legal custody or physical placement in an action under this section. (e) An injunction issued under par. (b) 2. c. is effective according to its terms for the period of time that the moving party requests, but not more than 2 years.

Wis .. Stat. 767.471(6) directly addresses involvement of law enforcement. It requires the court to expressly order law enforcement assistance. The statute reads (emphasis added),
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE. (a) If an injunction is issued under sub. (5) (b) 2. c., upon request by the moving party the court

shall order the sheriff to assist the moving party in executing or serving the injunction.
(b) Within 24 hours after a request by the moving party, the clerk of the circuit court shall send a copy of an injunction issued under sub. (5) (b) 2. c. to the sheriff or to any other local law enforcement agency that is the central repository for orders and that has jurisdiction over the responding party's residence. If the responding party does not reside in this state, the clerk shall send a copy of the injunction to the sheriff of the county in which the circuit court is located. (c) The sheriff or other appropriate local law enforcement agency under par. (b) shall make available to other law enforcement agencies, through a verification system, information on the existence and status of any injunction issued under sub. (5) (b) 2. c. The information need not be maintained after the injunction is no longer in effect.

There was and is no injunction expressly ordering law enforcement to force a placement transfer in my daughter's case (Waukesha County 2006PA390PJ). Be aware that the Waukesha court wrongfully jailed my daughter in April 2008 (2008AP2094). The two times that police involved themselves into my daughter's placement problems with the adjudicated father terrorized my granddaughters (ages 2 and 5). The first time 2

on Sept 3,2011 there was an armed uniformed officer standing in the living room at 7:30 on a Saturday morning. The second time on Dee 26,2011 there were two officers banging on the doors. Placement matters are complicated and the street is not the appropriate place to argue points and detail oflaw. In the two instances at my daughter's home the police took on the roles of advocate, judge, jury, and executioner. Needless to say, my granddaughters fear the police. I am asking that the city police stop terrorizing children. If the city police do not like the current law they are free to petition the government to change the law. As it is, current state law provides that child placement disputes be addressed in court.

Enc Cc

police dispatch records Mayor Barrett Police Chief Flynn Police Sgt Kerhin

35

07-12-2012

Order for change of venue Additional

Carter, Lloyd V

Text:

to Milwaukee County signed by Judge Lloyd V. Carter

--.-.---.----------~-----------------~----36 07-12-2012 Enforce physical placement hearing Additional Text; Carter, Lloyd V Humpal, Cheryl Adjudicated father Ted B Vallejos in court. Mother Stephanie M Przytarski in court.. Attorney Laura Ruth Schwefel in court for Child S. L. V .. Case called on the record. Mother objects to Guardian ad Litem sitting on this side of the bar. Court inquired with Stephanie Przytarski when the appeal was filedAppeal was filed on March 23, including January order signed by Judge Dreyfus on March 26,2012. Court indicated motion to enforce motion under 767041 (g) there is a time frame. Court indicated under 808.075 (4) regarding appeal issue. Statement by Attorney Schwefel regarding issue pending appeal. Statement by father. Statement by mother. Court is not going to address the motion to enforce filed by Mr. Vallejos-this Court without authority to address pending appeal. Statement by Ms. Przytarski regarding her motion to change venue. Statement by Mr. Vallejos objecting to the change of venue. Statement by Attorney Schwefel requesting this Court deny the change of venue. Court does not find that any of the Waukesha County Judges have been hostile toward her (Ms. Przytarski). Court finds when the case was filed Waukesha County was the correct venue. Court indicated mother and child live in Milwaukee County, father lives out of State. Court finds change of Venue to Milwaukee County. Court grants motion for change of venue filed by Ms. Przytarski. Court orders Ms. Przytarski to pay any costs associated with change of Venue. Court will not address order to show cause or order for contempt. All other orders remain in effect. 47 52 06-28-2012 06-20-2012 Application for specific judicial assign approved Order assigning judge/judicial assignment order Additional Text; Bohren, Michael O. Carter, Lloyd V

From Judge Bohren to Judge Carter 54 55 56 06-19-2012 06-19-2012 06-19-2012 Application for specific judicial assignment Application for specific judicial assignment Application for specific judicial assign approved Additional Text: by the DCA's office. Bohren, Michael O. Bohren, Michael O.

Judge Bohren is recusing himself from this case. Case to be reassigned 59 60 61 06-18-2012 06-18-2012 06-18-2012 Notice of assignment of judge Order assigning judge/judicial assignment order Application for specific judicial assign approved Additional Text:

Ramirez, RalphM. Bohren, Michael O. Ramirez, Ralph M.

From Judge Ramirez to Judge Bohren 64 06-14-2012 Letters/correspondence

Additional Text:
Request for Review by Chielf Judge; Filed with cover letter dated: June 12, 20] 2 from Stephanie Przytarski 66 06-08-2012 Letters/correspondence Additional
I

Text:

COPY ofletter dated June 6, 2012 addressed to ChielfJudge Davis submitted by Stephanie Przytarski regarding request for substitution of judge RequestforsubstiVcrtion Additional Text;

70

06-04-2012

submitted by Stephanie M. Przytarski, (reviewed by Judge Ramirez on June 4,2012, no motion pending request forSllostitntion DE"NlED); Filed with cover tetter dated: June 1,2012 from Stephanie Przytarski 73 74 18 <Y6-01-2012 tJ5-11-2H2 05-25-2012 Order assigning judge/judicial assignment order Awiication fol' specific judicial assign approved Letters/correspondence Addition~i 1" ext: Copy ofletter sent to Chief Judge Davis regarding Judicial Rotation, Request for Substitution of Judge and Arty. Schwefelas G.AL, Filed by Ms. Przytarski. 87 05-1 1-2012 Order to snow cause hearing Additional Text: Case called at 1:29 pm for Ms. Przytarski's request for substitution and an order to show cause hearing. Adjudicated father Ted B Vallejos in court. Mother Stephanie M Przytarski in court GAL Attorney Laura Ruth Schwefel in court for Child S. L. V .. Court addresses Ms. Przytarski's motion for substitution of Judge. Ms. Przytarski objects to this court hearing this case. Mr. Vallejos objects to the substitution. Attorney Schwefe1 objects to the substitution. Court finds the request for substitution was not timely. Court denies Ms. Przytarski's motion for substitution. Ms. Przytarski requests to have her aunt sit up with her to help her during the proceedings. Court denies this request. Court addresses Mr. Vallejosmotion tor contempt. Court addresses the tact that this case is currently under appeal and asks the parties ofhis authority to continue with this contempt motion. Parties make statements. Court tilltb he has statutory rights to continue with this contempt motion. Court continues with this proceeding. Ted B. Vallejos sworn in, testified. Ms. Przytarski advises GAL Schwefel was dismissed on the 5-4-12 date. Court re-appoints the GAL Schwefel at the rate of $175.00 an hour. (no new GAL appointment order needed per the Court) Stephanie M Przytarski sworn in, testified. Gary Kramschuster sworn in, testified. Testimony closed. Attorney Schwefel is in favor of Mr. VeUejos' motion. Parties give closing arguments. Court finds Stephanie M. Przytarski in contempt of court as to placement, regarding the use ofskype and choosing a therapist. Court finds Stephanie M Przytarski was illusive and evasive with the court. Court orders Mr. Vallejos gets an extra day with his summer placement as he sees fit, as he chooses, He must notify Stephanie M Przytarski by May 3ist, end of the day, of the day choosen, Commencing 5-14-2012 and thereafter, Stephanie M Przytarski must utilize Skype at least 3 times a week up to 15 minutes each time. Failure to do so each week will result in an extra day of placement for each week missed over the summer go to Mr. Vallejos. Court orders Stephanie M Przytarski to pay $100.00 to Mr. Vallejos by 5/25/12. To purge this payment she must provide a photo copy ofthe current insurance card for the minor child along with any/all insurance policy information. Court orders the parties to continue to be up to date with their GAL payments. Failure to do so will result in the Court not hearing motions filed by the parties that are behind in payments. Court addresses Stephanie M Przytarski's motion of harassment. Court dismisses Stephanie M Przytarski's motion of 5-9-12. Court orders Stephanie M Przytarski to provide copies of all documents filed to all parties in this case. Mr. Vallejos to draft an order of today's hearing. 95 05-04-2012 Request for substitution Additional Text: Ramirez, Ralph M. Weaver, Nancy Ramirez, RalphM. Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr. Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr.

of Judge, filed by Stephanie M. Przytarski, dated May 4, 2012 105 04-24-2012 Other papers Additional Text: Fax Copies of Dr. Matusiak's billing and correspondence with Ms. Przytarski, filed in court by Atty. Schwefel. 106 04-242012 Order to show cause Additional Text: submitted by Ted Vallejos; Signed by Judge Ralph M. Ramirez on: Apri124, 2012; filed with Affidavit signed by Ted Vallejos Ramirez, Ralph M. Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr.

:"'~:uCif20oTf58AM"'FEfRiE&sTOCKI"Nf-

.... ....--N"iJ:09T"Tr-. ...-.....-

'r~ 1

STATE OF WISCONSIN

~ CIRCUIT

COtiRT ; w..l:.iJKESHACOv'"N!'? :

2
~ 4
eASE NO. 06 PA 390

IN REI THE P.ATS~NI'P 0~; SA.~ 1. \1l'-..LLEJ'CS-K.~.MSCHUSTSR

5 petitioner,
6

TESTIMONY

-vsAnd
S~EPH}L~IEM. KRAMSCHUSTER.

..,
t

a
9

10
11 12

Respondent,

May 31, 20e9

~--.. .. ~
e '

13

HONO~~ MIeHAEL O. BOHREN, Circui~eouzt-Judge Branch I

14

15
15
1.7

JODY L. USOW, Attorney,

appeared on behaLf of the Petitioner. GEORGED. MISTiHOTY, Attorney, a.ppeared on beha i f o the Respondent.

is
l~
20

21 22
23
24 Kathryn
.

Fus,

.... it

0:Hicial

Soutt Reporter 1

~ ,

TtiLif200J1"O-;{t"iMiPEtIif&S"tOCKiNG'

..iitfoCE1/" ..

1 2 3

Q.

Mr. Vallejos, suicide?

had you ever ~~reatened

to commit

MS. USOW:Well, I'll fOtirtdQ.tion.

object

and ask fo~

5
6 7 8 S 1Q Q.

THE COURT!

Overruled.

Witness ean anSWer.

A.

I've

talked about having those thouqhts. done any-thing like

MR. MISTRIOTY:

I 'ye navel;'

actually

that,

though.

Are you aware of any incident invo~ving ~~e Fr~.klin Police Department where there may be a report to that effectf

l.1 12
A.

v ee,
Nowf

dc , to the written discovery you

14

Q.

in r~sponse

15
16

indicated

otherwise, that you forgotten about it?

MS. USOW; I'll object
indicated,

and indicate

that is .:..-

not what the discovery

The discovery
I'm overruling

is
19

THE OOURT~ Just: a minute. the ob.jection~ Yeu rteed to

ti'~e: quasti..on reasked?

back~

I will

20
21

ask the ~porte.t

read it

{~uegtion read back. }

22
23

'EHEWITNESS;
the'interrogatories?

I guess are you ;;;eierring to

MR. M!STRIOTY~

Yes.
do noe.

It asked if I had any physical reports and!

14

'j"uLiT20-6Tro;02A~(PEtKit&ttock'I'NG""""'"

..

.N.6:09.r rii

1
2

Q.

I see.
good.

Se, you interpreted

But there is indeed

the q'Jestion.
likely

Okay. Very
from

to be something

3 4

the Franklin Police Departma~t to that effect?

TKE CCJRT: answer Excuse me. Did the witness

5
6
"1 g 9 Q.

s THE ~ITNESS; Ye~,

MR. MIS'l'RIDTY: Forqi va me if I spoke over

him.

During the break up with Ms. Kramschuster

period of time when yeu were repeatedly

was ~~ere a calling her

10 11
12 13 14

MS. VSOW;
G<

Again, I will object and ask for

time pariod. THE COURT: I'll s\ls-ts;.in the cbjection_ As

to time.
M.!('.

lS
16 17 Q.

MISTRIOT't:

Wellr the ti."nB

perioci is during the break up period.

Le~ say in about Nov~~er of 2004. Was that the period of time when y~U~ relationship with Ms.

18

19 20
21 22
4.-_

A.
Q.

I would gay that's pretty accu~ate.

During that period of tiree were you attempting to call

her repeatedly? MS. r-elevanceror

~~

~sow:

Again,

I ~ill object and ask the

trLis

24

the purposes o;t"

hearing.

.-

2-5

THECOURT: I'll

overrule the objection.

1 question?

}iR. MISTRIOTY;

r~ lfl

soz-z-v ,

You answered the

T&~ CC~:4

Just a .lrJ.nute,

Do you need

tne

$cenario

read back to you? MR. MISTRIOTY: I asked him if he had

repeatedly made telephone calls during the period:

7

g 9 10 11

TP COURT:

I don't think he did ~espend.

So. do you wish t.o respond?

Th~ WITNESS:
confused

Yes, I'm sorry.

I was little

what was going on.

12
13 14 1.5 16 17 Q.

During that time period, probably a week after she

broke
I

up, that she asked

for me not t.e

call

her,

\>1hich

complied

with and from there we talked, called on

o~ca$ion.

MR. MISTRIOTY:
About Novamber of 2005,

that would have roughly bs@n

of

18

Sarab's

conceptive p~iod

tims.

Would

you aqree

19 2D
21 22

with that, first of all?

A.
Q.

J suppose

that would be accurate. testimony was durL~g the act of Do you recall

~~. Kramschust~r's conception

she had asked that you stop_

23
24 A.

I asked her -- I dc recall her saying, let s

J

stop

a~d

we stepped.
16

STATE

OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT FAMILY

COURT

WAUKESHA

COUNTY

DIVISION

--------------------------------------------------------

In Re the Paternity SARAH STATE

of:

L. VALLEJOS-KRAMSCHUSTER, OF WISCONSIN, Petitioner, and Case

c
No. 06-PA-390

TED VALLEJOS, STEPHANIE STEPHANIE PRZYTARSKI, KRAMSCHUSTER, Respondents. f/k/a

October

28, 2011

- POST JUDGMENT MOTION HEARING {Partial transcript of proceedings Testimony of Dr. Charlene Kavanagh} the HONORABLE Judge, LEE S. DREYFUS, 5, Presiding JR.

Before

Circuit A P PEA RAN C E S

Branch

JODY L. USOW, Attorney at Law, the Respondent, TED VALLEJOS; STEPHMTIE person; PRZYTARSKI,

appears

for and with

Respondent,

appears

in

Litem

LAURA R. SC~ffiFEL, Attorney on behalf of the child; JANICE PIPER, Family Court

at Law,

Guardian

ad

rervices; Court Reporter

LINDA

COLBMAN,

Official

1 2 3

POST JUDGMENT MOTION HEARING (Partial transcript of proceedings -- Dr. Charlene Kavanagh) WITNESSES:

5
6
7

CHARLENE KAVANAGH:
Direct examination by Ms. Przytarski ... Cross examination by Ms. Schwefel ... 42
. 52

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Re-direct examination by Ms. Przytarski. Re-cross Re-direct examination by Ms. Usow.

. 53

examination by Ms. Przytarski. 59

57

Re-cross examination by Ms. Schwefel ...

24

25

1 2
3

mixed personality

disorder. Or that Sarah is a special

MS. USOW: needs child. THE COURT: Please rephrase. BY MS. PRZYTARSKI:
Q

4 5
6 7

I'll sustain the objection.

Does Mr. vallejos have a mixed personality disorder?

8 9 10 11 12 13
.... ----.,

Well, he has several personality

disorders.

And

some people would, umm, combine them and say that the diagnosis would be mixed personality disorder.

Umm, I think he qualifies for three or four discreet personality disorders.

Q
A

14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Could you please list what those are? Narcissistic personality disorder. personality personality disorder, dependent

disorder, immature personality Umm, I think possibly obsessive disorder.

Q
A

Is Sarah a special needs child? Any child who has post traumatic stress disorder has a lot of needs that the normally developing child does not have, better term for it. I don't ~now if there's a Special needs often conjures

up different kinds of diagnoses, but in fact she is a special needs child.

22

STATE OF WISCONSIN Inre thePatermtyof: State of Wisconsin,

Sarah

CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT L Vallejos-Kramschuster .

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Petitioner

FILED IN CIRCUIT COURT

ORDER Case: 06-PA~390PJ

APR 30 2003
Stephanie M. Kramschuster, Ted B. Vallejos, Respondent

WAUKESHA CO. WI FAMILY DIVISION

Upon the authority of sec. 785.04(1)(a),(b)&(e) and 785.04(3), Wis. Stats, the file, Proceedings and the Court being fully advised in the premises, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the contempt jail sentence imposed on Respondent, Stephanie Kramschuster, which commenced on Monday, April 28, 2008, is stayed subject to the orders issued on April 28, 2008. Dated this 30th day of April; 2008.

Michael O. Bohren, Judge Circuit Court Branch 1

mp

cc:

Stephanie Kramschuster Attorney John Stocking Ted Vallejos Attorney Jody Usow Attorney Laura Schwefel Attorney Thomas Schneck

WISCONSIN COLTRT OF APPEALS

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
David R. Schenker Clerk
Telephone: 608-266-1880

110 E. Main Street, Suite 215 P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688

TI'Y: 800-947-3529
Fax: 608-267-0640

bttp:lfwww.wicollrts.gOV

COLLEEN BALL

APPELLATE COUNSEL S.C.

P.O. BOX 26565 MILWAUKEE, WI 53226-0565

in re the finding of contempt in In re the Paternity of Sarah L Vanejos-Kramschuster: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner,

Date: February 20, 2009 District: 2 Appeal NO.2008AP002094 Circuit Court Case No. 2006PA000390

v.
Stephanie M. Kramschuster, Respondent-Appellant, Ted B. Vallejos, Respondent-Respondent, L-aura R. Schwefel, Guardian ad Litem, Respondent. Remittitur This cause was an appeat to review the order(s) of the Circuit Court of Waukesha C.ounty.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court in a declslon filed on January 16, 2009, that:

The order of the Circuit court is summarily reversed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21. Panel: Hon. Brown

With costs taxed against Respondent in the sum of $810.55 by.the Court of Appeals. The appeal record is hereby retumedto the Clerk of Circuit Court for Waukesha County.
I certify that the above is a correct transcript of the original order and

judgment of the court in the above cause.

AP6015, 0312005 Remittitur

Page 1 of2

2008APOO2094

STATE OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 5

t1lAUKESHACOUNTY

I
IN RE THE PATERNITY OF SARAH L. VALLEJOS-KRAMSCHUSTER

HONORABLE LEE S. DREYFUS JR. PRESIDING JUDGE DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS:
October 28, 2011 Motion Hearing

Post-Judgment

Transcript of Ted Vallejos' and Gary Kramschuster's Testimony Only

APPEARANCES:
JODY L. USOW, Attorney at Law, appeared with and on

behalf of TED VALLEJOS,adjudicated

father. pro se and

STEPHANIE

with the assistance

PRZYTARSKI, Mother, appeared of RENEE MACK, Aunt.

guardian

LAURA RUTH SCHWEFEL, JANICE

ad litem.

PIPER, Family Court Services.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lisa C. Zinda, Official Court Reporter

81
I

1 2

t
j

expression

to you of placement MS. SCHWEFEL:

by the child? I have only

II
I

Your Honor,

3
4

been allowed to meet with the child one time and that was pursuant
'07.

t I
I

to a court order back in July of in August

I

I I

5
0
r-

Most recently

sent an a-mail

to

I,
I I
I
I

Miss Przytarski requesting

requesting

that I do a home study, That

7 8
9

that I meet with her and husband. this entire time. Miss

I
I
I

II

has gone unanswered Przytarski number.

had my e-mail, my address, She has offered me nothing from the child.

my phone
in which
I can

10 11 12 13
14

garner a statement

I
{

!
I
I

I will tell the court that in fact Mr.

I
I
I

Vallejos weekend.

did have placement I believe

at my home over a At

it was in August of '09.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24
,

I I

that time, the child was three years ald. Difficult to work with a child of that age. It

was clear to me that she loved her dad. clear to me that her dad loved her. to me that they had a warm, relationship

It was

It was clear

loving parental

but in terms of a child at three what her I not only could don't think it was

years old being able to understand desires would be with placement, not garner it, but I certainly appropriate
child of

to push that issue with a particular

.......... ,.

25

that age.

WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
David R. Schenker
Clerk Telephone: 608-266-188D

110 K Main Street, Suite 215 P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688

TrY: 800-947-3529
Fax: 608-267-0640

http://\.\'WW.wicollrts.gov

COLLEEN BALL APPELLATE COUNSEL S.C. P.O. BOX 26565

MILWAUKEE, WI 53226-0565

In re the finding of contempt in In re the Paternity ot Sarah L Vanejos-Kramschuster: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner,

Date: February 20, 2009 District: 2

Appeal NO.2008AP002094 Circuit Court Case No. 2006PA000390

v.
Stephanie M. Kramschuster, Respondent-Appellant, Ted B. Vallejos, Respondent-Respondent, Laura R. Schwefel. Guardian ad Utem, Respondent.

Remittitur
This cause was an appeat to review the order(s) of the CircuitCoUTt of Waukesha County. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court in a decision filed on January 16, 2009, that:

The order of the circuit court is summarily reversed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21. Panel: Hon. Brown in the sum of $810.55

With costs taxed against Respondent

by the Court of Appeals.

The appeal record is hereoy returned to the Clerk of Circuit Court for Waukesha County.
I certify that the above is a correct . transcript of the original order and judgment of the court in the above cause.

AP6015,

0312005 Remittitur

Page 1 of2

2008APOO2094

STATE OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 5

WAUKESHA

COUNTY

IN RE THE PATERNITY

OF

Case No. 06~PA-390PJ

I
1

SARAH L. VALLEJOS- KRAMSCHUSTER

HONORABLE

LEE S. DREYFUS JR.

PRESIDING JUDGE
DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS: October
28, 2011

Post-Judgment

Motion Hearing

Transcript of Ted Vallejos' and Gary Kramschuster's Testimony Only APPEARANCES:

JODY L. USOW, Attorney at Law, appeared with and on

behalf of TED VALLEJOS,

adjudicated

father.

STEPHANIE PRZYTARSKI, Mother, appeared pro se and with the assistance of RENEE MACK, Aunt. LAURA RUTH SCHhfEFEL, guardi an ad 1item. JANICE PIPER, Family Court Services.
* * * * * * * * * *

Lisa C. Zinda,

Official Court Reporter

~., ...

'~

81

expression

to you of placement

by the child?

2 3
4
! j

MS. SCHWEFEL:

Your Honor, I have only

I
I I ,
I

been allowed to meet with the child one time and that was pursuant to a court order back in July of
'07.

5 6 7

Most recently in August I sent an e-mail to requesting that I do a home study, That

Miss Przytarski requesting

8
9

I I

that I meet with her and husband. this entire time. Miss

has gone unanswered Przytarski number.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

II
I

had my e-mail, my address, my phone

She has offered me nothing in which I can

from the child.

II
I ,

garner a statement

I will tell the court that in fact Mr.

Vallejos weekend. did have placement
I

I,

at my home over a At

believe it was in August of '09.

that time, the child was three years old. Difficult to work with a child of that age. It

17
18 19 20 21 22

was clear to me that she loved her dad. clear to me that her dad loved her.

It was

It was clear

to me that they had a warm, loving parental relationship but in terms of a child at three what her not only could

years old being able to understand desires would be with placement, not garner it, but I certainly appropriate
child of I

23
24 25

don't think it was

to push that issue with a particular

that age.