8240 West Coventry DriveFranklin, WI 53132

Office of City AttorneyAtty Grant LangleyCity Hall Room 800200 East Wells StreetMilwaukee, WI 53202

December 30, 2012

Dear Atty. Langley,

I do not understand the city's hostility toward my daughter, Stephanie, and mygranddaughter, 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 ismessed up. I have attached portions of the online docket from the case (Waukesha2006PA390PJ). In the month ofJune, 2012 there were 4 judges assigned to the case.One was the judge originally assigned who then recused himself. Another judgerefused to be substituted. My daughter had to appeal to the chief judge to get the lawenforced. In July venue was changed to Milwaukee. In September my daughter flied amotion to modify (2012FA5081). This was her first motion filed to modify.

On December 26,2012 the same police officers, Sgt Kerhin, Officer Adameak, and OfficerClaas came to my daughter's home to eventually arrest her and force a transfer without a courtorder expressly instructing them to do so as provided by 767.471(6). The order they cited iscurrently under appeal (2012AP646). My daughter was held in the Milwaukee County jail for3 days before she saw the commissioner.

At this time the city has taken the side of the adjudicated father. This is a serious matter. Theadjudicated father has testified that he has suicide problems and that my daughter told himstop 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 mentalhealth problems from which the adjudicated father suffers. No psychologist has refuted thisdiagnosis.

On April 28, 2008 my daughter was illegally jailed in Waukesha County. I have attached thecourt order that shows that she was physically jailed and the remittitur that reversed the orderthat jailed her.

Declaration: Under no circumstance is any statement, expressed or implied, byGary Kramschuster to be taken to be a notification of misconduct to any lawenforcement 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 ofLaura 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 isanswerable to no one and to no law. Gary Kramschuster acknowledges that LauraSchwefel 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 asthe guardian ad litem were respondents. The lawyer acting in the role of guardian adlitem 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 litemstated in open court that she had the adjudicated father staying at her home over theweekend 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'splacement problems with the adjudicated father. My granddaughters are fearful of thepolice 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 ismessed-up. Again the Milwaukee Police took it upon themselves to enforce law as theysee fit, not as the law is. Paraphrasing Sgt Kerhin the technical details of law are notimportant. Do as the Milwaukee Police order or be arrested.

Ihave also enclosed a DVD with both this years forced Christmas transfer and lastyears.

Again, Iam asking that the city police stop terrorizing my granddaughters but addingthat they stop helping the adjudicated father continue his predation of my daughter.

Reg,ards, ~J // ~GUY'7 1)vvwrJ " .

Gary KramschusterEnc DVD of transfers

Cc Mayor BarrettPolice Chief FlynnSheriff ClarkDistrict Attorney ChisholmPolice Sgt Kerhin

2

8240 West Coventry DriveFranklin, WI 53132

Office of City AttorneyAtty Grant LangleyCity Hall Room 800200 East Wells StreetMilwaukee, WI 53202

February 9,2012

Dear Atty. Langley,

Twice now I have met City of Milwaukee Police at my daughter's home dealing with achild placement problem while my daughter was at work. The police had been calledby the adjudicated father. The last time the officers, in particular Sgt Kerhin, told methat they were enforcing a valid court order for placement. The court order presenteddid not expressly instruct the police to force the placement transfer. Further, there is nocourt 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 tobe argued in the courtroom and not in the street. Wis. Stat. § 767.471 is specificallydesigned to address disputes over physical placement orders. It sets out the proceduresa court must follow, the findings it must make, and the remedies it may grant-when thecourt finds that a parent has been denied placement by another parent. If a parentbelieves that they have been denied placement they may move for enforcement of aphysical 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 onthe motion no later than 30 days after the motion has been served,unless the time is extended by mutual agreement of the parties orupon the motion of a guardian ad litem and the approval of thecourt. 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 tothe hearing.(b) If at the conclusion of the hearing the court fmds that theresponding party has intentionally and unreasonably denied themoving party one or more periods of physical placement or thatthe responding party has intentionally and unreasonably interferedwith one or more of the moving party's periods of physicalplacement, the court:1. Shall do all of the following:a. Issue an order granting additional periods of physicalplacement to replace those denied or interfered with. Award the moving party areasonable amount for the costof 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 ofphysical placement does not provide for specific times for theexercise 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 strictlycomply with the judgment or order relating to the award of physicalplacement. In determining whether to issue an injunction, thecourt shall consider whether alternative remedies requested by themoving party would be as effective in obtaining compliance withthe order or judgment relating to physical placement.(c) If at the conclusion of the hearing the court fmds that themoving party has incurred a financial loss or expenses as a resultof the responding party's failure, intentionally and unreasonablyand without adequate notice to the moving party, to exercise oneor more periods of physical placement under an order allocatingspecific times for the exercise of periods of physical placement,the court may issue an order requiring the responding party to payto the moving party a sum of money sufficient to compensate themoving party for the financial loss or expenses.(d) Except as provided in par. (b) 1. a. and 2. a., the court maynot modify an order of legal custody or physical placement in anaction under this section.(e) An injunction issued under par. (b) 2. c. is effective accordingto its terms for the period of time that the moving partyrequests, but not more than 2 years.

Wis .. Stat. § 767.471(6) directly addresses involvement of law enforcement. It requires thecourt to expressly order law enforcement assistance. The statute reads (emphasis added),

ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE. (a) If an injunction is issuedunder sub. (5) (b) 2. c., upon request by the moving party the courtshall order the sheriff to assist the moving party in executing orserving the injunction.(b) Within 24 hours after a request by the moving party, theclerk of the circuit court shall send a copy of an injunction issuedunder sub. (5) (b) 2. c. to the sheriff or to any other local lawenforcement agency that is the central repository for orders andthat has jurisdiction over the responding party's residence. If theresponding party does not reside in this state, the clerk shall senda copy of the injunction to the sheriff of the county in which thecircuit court is located.(c) The sheriff or other appropriate local law enforcementagency under par. (b) shall make available to other law enforcementagencies, through a verification system, information on theexistence and status of any injunction issued under sub. (5) (b) 2.c. The information need not be maintained after the injunction isno longer in effect.

There was and is no injunction expressly ordering law enforcement to force a placementtransfer in my daughter's case (Waukesha County 2006PA390PJ). Be aware that theWaukesha court wrongfully jailed my daughter in April 2008 (2008AP2094).

The two times that police involved themselves into my daughter's placement problemswith 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 at7:30 on a Saturday morning. The second time on Dee 26,2011 there were two officersbanging on the doors.

Placement matters are complicated and the street is not the appropriate place to arguepoints and detail oflaw. In the two instances at my daughter's home the police took onthe roles of advocate, judge, jury, and executioner. Needless to say, my granddaughtersfear the police.

I am asking that the city police stop terrorizing children. If the city police do not likethe 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 police dispatch records

Cc Mayor BarrettPolice Chief FlynnPolice Sgt Kerhin

3

35 07-12-2012 Carter, Lloyd VOrder for change of venue

Additional Text:to Milwaukee County signed by Judge Lloyd V. Carter

36 07-12-2012--.-.---.----------~-----------------~-----

Humpal, Cheryl

47 06-28-201252 06-20-2012

54 06-19-201255 06-19-201256 06-19-2012

59 06-18-201260 06-18-201261 06-18-2012

64 06-14-2012

66 06-08-2012

I

70 06-04-2012

Enforce physical placement hearing Carter, Lloyd V

Additional Text;

Adjudicated father Ted B Vallejos in court. Mother Stephanie M Przytarski in court.. Attorney LauraRuth 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 filed-Appeal 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 under808.075 (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 byMr. 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 thatany 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 inMilwaukee County, father lives out of State. Court finds change of Venue to Milwaukee County. Courtgrants motion for change of venue filed by Ms. Przytarski. Court orders Ms. Przytarski to pay any costsassociated with change of Venue. Court will not address order to show cause or order for contempt. All

other orders remain in effect.

Application for specific judicial assign approvedOrder assigning judge/judicial assignment order

Additional Text;

From Judge Bohren to Judge Carter

Application for specific judicial assignment Bohren, Michael O.Application for specific judicial assignment

Application for specific judicial assign approved Bohren, Michael O.

Additional Text:

Bohren, Michael O.Carter, Lloyd V

Judge Bohren is recusing himself from this case. Case to be reassigned by the DCA's office.

Notice of assignment of judge Ramirez, RalphM.Order assigning judge/judicial assignment order Bohren, Michael O.Application for specific judicial assign approved Ramirez, Ralph M.

Additional Text:

From Judge Ramirez to Judge Bohren

Letters/correspondence

Additional Text:

Request for Review by Chielf Judge; Filed with cover letter dated: June 12, 20] 2 from StephaniePrzytarski

Letters/correspondence

Additional Text:

COPY ofletter dated June 6, 2012 addressed to ChielfJudge Davis submitted by Stephanie Przytarskiregarding request for substitution of judge

RequestforsubstiVcrtion

Additional Text;

submitted by Stephanie M. Przytarski, (reviewed by Judge Ramirez on June 4,2012, no motion pendingrequest forSllostitntion DE"NlED); Filed with cover tetter dated: June 1,2012 from Stephanie Przytarski

73 <Y6-01-2012 Order assigning judge/judicial assignment order Ramirez, RalphM.74 tJ5-11-2€H2 Awiication fol' specific judicial assign approved Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr.18 05-25-2012 Letters/correspondence Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr.

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 Ramirez, Ralph M. Weaver, Nancy

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 forsubstitution of Judge. Ms. Przytarski objects to this court hearing this case. Mr. Vallejos objects to thesubstitution. Attorney Schwefe1 objects to the substitution. Court finds the request for substitution wasnot timely. Court denies Ms. Przytarski's motion for substitution. Ms. Przytarski requests to have heraunt 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 asksthe parties ofhis authority to continue with this contempt motion. Parties make statements. Court tilltbhe has statutory rights to continue with this contempt motion. Court continues with this proceeding. TedB. 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 orderneeded per the Court) Stephanie MPrzytarski sworn in, testified. Gary Kramschuster sworn in, testified.

Testimony closed. Attorney Schwefel is in favor of Mr. VeUejos' motion. Parties give closingarguments. Court finds Stephanie M. Przytarski in contempt of court as to placement, regarding the useofskype 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 hechooses, 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 aweek 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 MPrzytarski 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 ordersthe 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 MPrzytarski's motion of harassment. Court dismisses Stephanie M Przytarski's motion of 5-9-12. Courtorders 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:

of Judge, filed by Stephanie M. Przytarski, dated May 4, 2012

105 04-24-2012 Other papers Dreyfus, Lee S., Jr.

Additional Text:

Fax Copies of Dr. Matusiak's billing and correspondence with Ms. Przytarski, filed in court by Atty.Schwefel.

106 04-24·2012 Order to show cause Ramirez, Ralph M.

Additional Text:

submitted by Ted Vallejos; Signed by Judge Ralph M. Ramirez on: Apri124, 2012; filed with Affidavitsigned by Ted Vallejos

··:·····"'······~:·uCif20·oT··f58AM········"'FEfR·iE&s·TOCKI"Nf···············-··········· .... ·········· .. ··· ..···--···N"iJ:·09T"····T··r······-.· ... -.···.·.· ..-

'r~ 1~ 1

2

~

4

5

6..,t

a9

1011

12e 13~~--..'..

14

15151.7

isl~20

212223

24

..•.•.it 2§. ~,

STATE OF WISCONSIN ~ CIRCUIT COtiRT ; w..l:.iJKESHACOv'"N!'? :

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

eASE NO. 06 PA 390TESTIMONY

petitioner,-vs-

AndS~EPH}L~IEM. KRAMSCHUSTER.

Respondent,

May 31, 20e9 HONO~~ MIeHAEL O. BOHREN,Circui~·eouzt-JudgeBranch· I

JODY L. USOW, Attorney,appeared on behaLf of the Petitioner.GEORGED. MISTiHOTY, Attorney,

a.ppeared on beha i f o£ the Respondent.

Kathryn Fus,0:Hicial Soutt Reporter

1

···············TtiL·if20·0·J··1"O-;{t"iMi········PEtIif&S"tOCKiNG'····························· ..·························iitfo§C·····E··1·/"···· ..·················

5

6

7

8

S

1Q

l.1

12

141516

is19

2021

2223

1

2

3

Q. Mr. Vallejos, had you ever ~~reatened to commitsuicide?

MS. USOW:Well, I'll object and ask fo~

fOtirtdQ.tion.

THE COURT! Overruled. Witness ean anSWer.

A. I've talked about having those thouqhts. I 'ye navel;'

actually done any-thing like that, though.

MR. MISTRIOTY:

Q. Are you aware of any incident invo~ving ~~e Fr~.klinPolice Department where there may be a report to thateffectf

A.

Q.

v ee, I dc ,

Nowf in r~sponse to the written discovery you

indicated otherwise, that you forgotten about it?MS. USOW; I'll object and indicate that is

not what the discovery indicated, The discovery .:..-

THE OOURT~ Just: a minute. I'm overruling

the ob.jection~ Yeu rteed ti'~e:quasti..on reasked? I will

ask the ~porte.t to read it back~

{~uegtion read back. }

'EHEWITNESS; I guess are you ;;;eierringtothe'interrogatories?

MR. M!STRIOTY~ Yes.It asked if I had any physical reports and! do noe.

14

··'·············j"uL·iT20-6Tro·;02A·~(······PEtK·it&ttock'I'NG""""'" ·..······ · ·· ··.N.6:·09.r ···r··ii·······················

1

2

3

4

5

6

"1

g

9

1011

121314

lS16

17

1819202122~~4.-_

24

2-5.-

Q. I see. Se, you interpreted the q'Jestion. Okay. Very

good. But there is indeed likely to be something from

the Franklin Police Departma~t to that effect?TKE CCJRT: Excuse me. Did the witness

answer s

THE ~ITNESS; Ye~,MR. MIS'l'RIDTY: Forqi va me if I spoke over

him.Q. During the break up with Ms. Kramschuster was ~~ere a

period of time when yeu were repeatedly calling her

MS. VSOW; Again, I will object and ask forG< time pariod.

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

M.!('. MISTRIOT't:

Q. Wellr the ti."nB perioci is during the break up period.

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

A. I would gay that's pretty accu~ate.

Q. During that period of tiree were you attempting to callher repeatedly?

MS. ~sow: Again, I ~ill object and ask ther-elevanceror the purposes o;t" trLis hearing.

THECOURT: I'll overrule the objection.

1 }iR. MISTRIOTY; r ~lfl soz-z-v , You answered the

question?T&~ CC~:- Just a .lrJ.nute, Do you need tne

4 $cenario read back to you?5 MR. MISTRIOTY: I asked him if he had

repeatedly made telephone calls during the period:7

g TP£ COURT: I don't think he did ~espend.9 So. do you wish t.o respond?

10 Th~ WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. I was little11 confused what was going on.

12 During that time period, probably a week after she13 broke up, that she asked for me not t.e call her, \>1hich

14 I complied with and from there we talked, called on1.5 o~ca$ion.

16 MR. MISTRIOTY:17 Q. About Novamber of 2005, that would have roughly bs@n

18 Sarab's conceptive p~iod of tims. Would you aqree

19 with that, first of all?

2D A. J suppose that would be accurate.

21 Q. ~~. Kramschust~r's testimony was durL~g the act of

22 conception she had asked that you stop_ Do you recall

2324 A. I asked her -- I dc recall her saying, letJs stopp a~d

we stepped.16

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT WAUKESHA COUNTY

FAMILY DIVISION

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

In Re the Paternity of:

SARAH L. VALLEJOS-KRAMSCHUSTER,

STATE OF WISCONSIN, cPetitioner,

and Case No. 06-PA-390

TED VALLEJOS,

STEPHANIE PRZYTARSKI, f/k/a

STEPHANIE KRAMSCHUSTER,

Respondents.

October 28, 2011 - POST JUDGMENT MOTION HEARING{Partial transcript of proceedings -Testimony of Dr. Charlene Kavanagh}

Before the HONORABLE LEE S. DREYFUS, JR.

Circuit Judge, Branch 5, Presiding

A P PEA RAN C E S

JODY L. USOW, Attorney at Law, appears for and withthe Respondent, TED VALLEJOS;

STEPHMTIE PRZYTARSKI, Respondent, appears inperson;

LAURA R. SC~ffiFEL, Attorney at Law, Guardian adLitem on behalf of the child;

JANICE PIPER, Family Court rervices;

LINDA COLBMAN, Official Court Reporter

1 I N D E x2 POST JUDGMENT MOTION HEARING (Partial

transcript of proceedings -- Dr. Charlene Kavanagh)3

4 WITNESSES:

5 CHARLENE KAVANAGH:6 Direct examination by Ms. Przytarski ... 37 Cross examination by Ms. Schwefel ... 42

8 Re-direct examination by Ms. Przytarski. . 52

9 Re-cross examination by Ms. Usow. . 53

10 Re-direct examination by Ms. Przytarski. 57

11 Re-cross examination by Ms. Schwefel ... 59

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

.... ----.,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q

A

Q

A

Q

mixed personality disorder.

MS. USOW: Or that Sarah is a specialneeds child.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.Please rephrase.

BY MS. PRZYTARSKI:Does Mr. vallejos have a mixed personalitydisorder?Well, he has several personality disorders. Andsome people would, umm, combine them and say thatthe diagnosis would be mixed personality disorder.Umm, I think he qualifies for three or four

discreet personality disorders.

Could you please list what those are?Narcissistic personality disorder, dependentpersonality disorder, immature personalitydisorder. Umm, I think possibly obsessivepersonality disorder.Is Sarah a special needs child?Any child who has post traumatic stress disorderhas a lot of needs that the normally developing

child does not have, I don't ~now if there's abetter term for it. Special needs often conjuresup different kinds of diagnoses, but in fact she

is a special needs child.

A

22

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURTFAMILY COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Inre thePatermtyof: Sarah L Vallejos-Kramschuster .

State of Wisconsin,Petitioner FILED

IN CIRCUIT COURT

APR 30 2003

WAUKESHA CO. WIFAMILY DIVISION

ORDERCase: 06-PA~390PJ

Stephanie M. Kramschuster,Ted B. Vallejos,

Respondent

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, JudgeCircuit Court Branch 1

mp

cc: Stephanie KramschusterAttorney John StockingTed VallejosAttorney Jody UsowAttorney Laura SchwefelAttorney Thomas Schneck

WISCONSIN COLTRT OF APPEALSOFFICE OF THE CLERK

110 E. Main Street, Suite 215P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701-1688

Telephone: 608-266-1880TI'Y: 800-947-3529Fax: 608-267-0640

bttp:lfwww.wicollrts.gOVDavid R. SchenkerClerk

COLLEEN BALLAPPELLATE COUNSEL S.C.P.O. BOX 26565MILWAUKEE, WI 53226-0565

in re the finding of contempt inIn re the Paternity of Sarah L Vanejos-Kramschuster:

Date: February 20, 2009

District: 2Appeal NO.2008AP002094Circuit Court Case No. 2006PA000390

State of Wisconsin,Petitioner,

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 correcttranscript of the original order andjudgment of the court in the abovecause.

AP·6015, 0312005 Remittitur Page 1 of2 2008APOO2094

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURTBRANCH 5

t1lAUKESHACOUNTY

IN RE THE PATERNITY OFSARAH L. VALLEJOS-KRAMSCHUSTER

HONORABLE LEE S. DREYFUS JR.PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: October 28, 2011TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS: Post-Judgment Motion Hearing

Transcript of Ted Vallejos' andGary Kramschuster's TestimonyOnly

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 SCHWEFEL, guardian ad litem.JANICE PIPER, Family Court Services.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lisa C. Zinda,Official Court Reporter

IIII

, .....•.•.... ,.

I

1 tIj

2 II

3 I

t4 I

III

5I

r-,

0 III

7 I8 I

I

9 I10 I11

I~!

12 I{

I

13 II

14 II

15 II16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

expression to you of placement by the child?MS. SCHWEFEL: Your Honor, I have only

been allowed to meet with the child one time andthat was pursuant to a court order back in July of'07. Most recently in August I sent an a-mail toMiss Przytarski requesting that I do a home study,requesting that I meet with her and husband. Thathas gone unanswered this entire time. MissPrzytarski had my e-mail, my address, my phonenumber. She has offered me nothing in which I cangarner a statement from the child.

I will tell the court that in fact Mr.Vallejos did have placement at my home over a

weekend. I believe it was in August of '09. Atthat time, the child was three years ald.

Difficult to work with a child of that age. Itwas clear to me that she loved her dad. It wasclear to me that her dad loved her. It was clearto me that they had a warm, loving parentalrelationship but in terms of a child at threeyears old being able to understand what herdesires would be with placement, I not only couldnot garner it, but I certainly don't think it wasappropriate to push that issue with a particularchild of that age.

81

WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALSOFFICE OF THE CLERK

110 K Main Street, Suite 215P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701-1688

Telephone: 608-266-188DTrY: 800-947-3529Fax: 608-267-0640

http://\.\'WW.wicollrts.govDavid R. SchenkerClerk

COLLEEN BALLAPPELLATE COUNSEL S.C.P.O. BOX 26565MILWAUKEE, WI 53226-0565

In re the finding of contempt inIn re the Paternity ot Sarah L Vanejos-Kramschuster:

Date: February 20, 2009

District: 2Appeal NO.2008AP002094Circuit Court Case No. 2006PA000390

State of Wisconsin,Petitioner,

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

With costs taxed against Respondent in the sum of $810.55 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 andjudgment of the court in the abovecause.

AP·6015, 0312005 Remittitur Page 1 of2 2008APOO2094

~.,... '~

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT WAUKESHA COUNTYBRANCH 5

IN RE THE PATERNITY OF Case No. 06~PA-390PJSARAH L. VALLEJOS- KRAMSCHUSTER

HONORABLE LEE S. DREYFUS JR.PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: October 28, 2011

TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS: Post-Judgment Motion HearingTranscript of Ted Vallejos' andGary Kramschuster's TestimonyOnly

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

I1

I

1

2!

3j

I4 I5

I6

,II

7 I8 I

I9 I

I10 I

I11

12II,

13 I,14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

expression to you of placement by the child?MS. SCHWEFEL: Your Honor, I have only

been allowed to meet with the child one time andthat was pursuant to a court order back in July of'07. Most recently in August I sent an e-mail toMiss Przytarski requesting that I do a home study,requesting that I meet with her and husband. Thathas gone unanswered this entire time. MissPrzytarski had my e-mail, my address, my phonenumber. She has offered me nothing in which I cangarner a statement from the child.

I will tell the court that in fact Mr.Vallejos did have placement at my home over aweekend. I believe it was in August of '09. Atthat time, the child was three years old.Difficult to work with a child of that age. Itwas clear to me that she loved her dad. It wasclear to me that her dad loved her. It was clearto me that they had a warm, loving parentalrelationship but in terms of a child at threeyears old being able to understand what herdesires would be with placement, I not only couldnot garner it, but I certainly don't think it wasappropriate to push that issue with a particularchild of that age.

81