Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wagner v. Wagner

@PREME COUNTr

No. 73-1447

Iu the .

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser Term, 1973

WILLARD WAGNER,

Petitioner,

JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF WISCONSIN

SAMSON, FRIEBERT, SUTTON,

FINERTY & BURNS

ROBERT E. SUTTON

710 North Plankinton Avenue

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

Attorneys for Petitioner

UNITED STATES LAW PRINTING CO., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60618 (312) 525-6581

EE PILL E SI FLEE AL LINE OR ES AEE ILO, LOE TS CEN A LN PETRIE Ti, LEEK GLORIA « a 8 < 2 TRIE

INDEX

PAGE

ES aE LR e O ERG ohel 1

SELLS NOE ct EE a

Questions Presented for Review ........ “aa

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes Involved ........ 2

Statement of the Case

Reasons for Granting the Writ’

I. A Natural Father Is Entitled To Associate

With His Chiid Under The Ist, 9th And 14th

Amendments To The United States Constitution 7

IY A Parent Is Entitled To Certain Elementary

Due Process Protection Of His Right To As-

sociate With His Child ....... a oe

Ill. The Fetitioner Has Been Denied Elementary

Due Process Of Law In The Denial Of Visita-

tion Rights Of His Child 11

Conclusion 12

Appendix:

Opinion of Supreme Court of Wisconsin ........ App. 1

Summons, Petition & Order to Show Cause ....... App. 2

Temporary Order App. &

Affidavit App. 10

Complaint App. 11

Amended Cumplaint App. 15

Order App. 17

Order App. 19

i

PAGE

Assignment of Action .. App. 20

Petition for Relief App. 21

Request to Reconsider Petition for Temporary

a RENE SRT ete anne eee Ut App. 22

: Decision App. 26

Proposal of Findings and Conclusions ........... App. 39

Notice of Entry of Judgment ... App. 40

Petition for Extraordinary Writ App. 41

Notice of Paging of the Record App. 43

Decision of Supreme Court of Wisconsin .....App. 44

AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases

Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964) 10

Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) .... - 10

Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) 10

In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) 10

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966) ~.......... 10

Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 Fed. Supp. 620 ....... 8

In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 1 (1955) 11

Stanley v. Illinois, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 405 U.S. 645, 31

L.Ed. 2d 551 ....... 9

Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) 3 10

PRPS it AS. SHR PES aThy P ee ae 24, EE NPS BEER LOE EE: EN SR A ELMER SNE RPE SG OT i HE

i

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser TERM, 1973

No.

WILLARD WAGNER,

Petitioner, ;

VS.

JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari issue to re-

view the order of the Supreme Court of the State of Wis-

consin entered on January 4, 1974.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Wis-

consin is set out in the appendix, p. 1.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

See. 1257(3).

PRR OPO OEX Ono Be ee yop aey ~ os ” ~

RAP ROSEY, COREL IEDR LORE CLD BEESON EERIE, LEE A EV ENT NS PRP HE. eet LON POS Ly Ee

2

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVISW

1. Does a natural father have a constitutional right to

associate with his child?

2. If so what are the minimum due process require-

ments which attend a forfeiture of that right?

3. Has the petitioner been denied elementary due pro-

cess in the denial of his right to associate with his child?

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTES INVOLVED

1. This case involves the First, Ninth and Fourteenth

Amegenuats to the United States: Constitution.

as 2. This case ‘jnvolves See. 247. 37, Wis. Stats. and 42

U.S.C. See. 1983.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(The chronology of events is complicated but a full rec-

itation of them is absolutely essential to a full understand-

ing of the magnitude of the constitutional violations per-

petrated upon the petitioner).

Willard Wagner and Joyce Ann Wagner were married

on November 25, 1967 at Kenosha, Wisconsin. One child, |

Suzanne, was born of the marriage on July 26, 1968.

On September 23, 1970 Joyce Wagner, the respondent,

petitioned a Family Court Commissioner of Racine County,

Wisconsin for the issuance of-an Order to Show Cause di-

rected against Willard Wagner, the petitioner, thus com-

mencing a divorce action. The Order to Show Cause to-

gether with a divorce summons was served upon the

petitioner on September 25, 1970 and a hearing held before

WA Nie sie IE EL LOE LE RE LOGI. LEE EERIE TN RS DOA FS AIAN TG, veo is

3

the Family Court Commissioner on Oetober 30, 1970. Noth-

ing in the Petition or Order to Show Cause alleged that

the petitioner was in jeopardy of losing visitation rights

with the minor child.of the parties who was then 16 months

old. (App., pp. 2-8) '

At the hearing on October 30, 1970 the respondent was

represented by an attorney and the petitioner was not.

On November 3, 1970 the Family Court Commissioner is-

sued a temporary order which inter alia deprived the peti-

tioner of ani visitation with the minor child of the par-

ties. (App., pp. 9-10) Subsequently many years later at

the ultimate trial on the merits it was revealed that the

attorney for the respondent had ex parte contact with the

Court Commissioner and had furnished an unspecific affi-

davit by the respondent in order to support the order of

the Family Court Commissioner denying visitation. (App.,

p. 11)

On December 4, 1970 the County J udge before whom the

ease was to be heard entered an order appointing a guard-

ian ad litem for the child and ordered that the issue of visi-

tation be heard as a contested matter and that the parties

be examined by a psychiatric clinie regarding the matter

of visitation. (App., pp. 17-18) Although the parties were

examined no action of any kind was ever taken by the court

upon the results of the examination. Another such order

was entered on September 3, 1971 (App., pp. 19-20) also to

no ultimate conclusion.

On January 7, 1971 the complaint of the respondent was

filed. That complaint did not plead any facts for or con-

tain any prayer regarding the denial of visitation, tempo-

rary or permanent to the petitioner. (App., pp. 12-15) An

amended complaint was filed on June 19, 1973 and it also

4

did not challenge visitation in any respect. (App., pp. 16-18)

On November 5, 1971 the trial commenced and hearings

were held on November 26, December 21 and December 22,

1971. On December 24, 1971 the trial judge disqualified

himself and the matter was transferred to another judge,

the Hon. Richard J. Harvey, on February 8, 1972. (App.

p. 20)

Trial before Judge Harvey was helé on March 27, April

24, May 15, June 19, 21, 22, 29 and August 22, 23, 24, 28

. and 29, 1972. Repeatedly during the proceedings both be-

fore the original trial judge and before Judge Harvey mo-

tions for visitation both temporary and permanent were

denied. At the close of the trial on August 29, 1972 a mo-

tion for temporary visitation of the petitioner with his

child was last made and denied. Briefs on the case were

ordered submitted by the parties on or before September

25, 1972 and briefs and recommendations of the guardian

ad litem were submitted on September 27, 1972. A peti-

tion for relief directed to the issue of temporary visita-

tion was filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Septem-

ber 19, 1972 and denied'on September 28, 1972. (App.,

pp. 21-22)

On October 6, 1972 an action under the Civil Rights Act,

42 U.S.C. See. 1983 directed solely at the issue of tem-

porary visitation was filed in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On Novem.

ber 10, 1972 Judge Harvey issued an Order to Show Cause

why counsel for the petitioner should not be punished for

contempt of the State court for fling the Civil Rights

action in the federal court. A petition removing the con-

tempt action to the federai court was filed on November

15, 1972 and a temporary stay granted on December 4,

ge Salk mk PL RET UP ATIELS te CS NAFTA She OE, OE ILE IOS OE, BLA EOC LO LEE CI AED PELE STORED a MII

5

1972. A request to reconsider the petition for temporary

visitation had been presented to the Wisconsin Supreme

Court on December 15, 1972 (App., pp. 22-25) and was never

acted upon.

On December 22, 1972 a decision was mailed to the

parties on the merits of the divorce action by Judge Har-

vey inter alia denying visitation to the petitioner. (App.,

pp. 26-40) On January 26, 1973 the United States District

Court for the Esstern District of Wisconsin denied re-

moval of the contempt and on January 29, 1973 counsel for

the petitioner filed an action under 42 U.S.C. See. 1983

against the state trial judge in the contempt matter. On

February 6, 1973 the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a temporary restrain-

ing order against the state judge in the contempt matter

and since the state judge had on January 31, 1973 ordered

the federal court to show cause why it should not desist

the federal court had petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme

Court for a Writ of Prohibition against the state court.

A decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the petition

was entered on April 17, 1973 and is reported at 58 Wis.

2d 424, 206 N.W. 2d 428.

On February 6, 1973 the Federal District Court also

dismissed the action on visitation as moot on the grounds

that a decision had been rendered by the state court which

was properly reviewable in the State Supreme Court. The

decision of December 22, 1972 directed that the counsel

for the respondent, Joyee Wagner, prepare Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of law in accordance with the deci-

sion. (App., p. 38) If the December 22, 1972 decision is

considered judgment (although no notice of judgment was

served until May, 1973 and See. 247.37(b), Wis. Stats. was

Ri oe RnR

F RIP RSS? SSS is RI Se : ra —

ASAIN REN era

6

never complied with) the state law provides that such find-

ings and conclusions are to be prepared within thirty (30)

days—Wis. Stats. Sec. 247.37(1)(a), however, no findings

and conclusions were proposed by counsel for the respon-

dent until April 25, 1973 (App., p. 40) and judgment was

entered on May 15, 1973 with Notice of Entry of Judgment

provided on May 23, 1973. (App., p. 40)

A Notice of Appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was

served and duly filed on August i4, 1973 and a petition to

the Wisconsin Supreme Court for an extraordinary writ

directed to the issue of temporary visitation was served

on August 22, 1973, heard on August 28, 1973 and denied

on August 30, 1973. (App., pp. 41-42) <A notice for the

paging of the record was entered on October 25, 1973 and

the record was filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on

October 25, 1973. (App., p. 43) A petition to the Wis-

consin Supreme Court for temporary visitation pending

decision on the appeal was filed on November 7, 1973,

heard on Novembex 21, 1973 and denied on November 27,

1973. (App., p. 44) On November 13, 1973 the respondent

filed a Notice to Dismiss the Appeal and on January 4,

1974 the Wisconsin Supreme Court by the order challenged

in this petition ordered the appeal dismissed as to all

issues relating to the rights of visitation of the petitioner

with his minor child. (App., p. 1)

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I

A NATURAL FATHER IS ENTITLED TO ASSOCIATE

WITH HIS CHILD UNDER THE ist 9th AND 14th

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTI.

TUTION.

The vltimate effectef the previously recited facts is

that the petitioner was temporarily deprived of visitation

with his minor child for the past three plus years and final-

ly by the order chalienged here has been permanently de-

prived of visitation. He has also suffered a consequent and

equally serious deprivation of the right to review the

merits of the visitation deprivation and the due process

vel non of accomplishing that visitation deprivation. The

Wisconsin Supreme Court has been tendered the issue of

four occasicns—five if one includes the occasion of the

petition of the United States District Court requesting a

Writ of Prohibition against the state county judge—on

September 19, 1972, December 15, 1972, January 31, 1973,

August 22, 1973 and November 7, 1973 and on each and

every occasion the Wisconsin Supreme Court has refused

to review the issues of (a) the constitutional rights vel

non of a natural father to visit his child, (b) the procedural

due process to which a litigant is entitled in a divorce

action hefore forfeiting the right of visitation and (e) the

particular due process and/or the merits of the deprivation

of the visitation in the specific case of Wagner vy. Wagner.

Although to this date the United States Supreme Court

has not identified the right of a natural parent to asso-

ciate with his or her child as a right embodied in the Con-

SO aA GEE a

8

stitution of the United States that pronouncement has been

made by the lower federal court and is implicit in decisions

of the United States Supreme Court. In Mabra v. Schmidt,

356 Fed. Supp. 620, Judge Doyle of the United States Dis-

trict Court for the Western District of Wisconsin declared :

Freedom to associate with others is a right secured

by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. N.A.A.C.P.

v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1957). The forms of

association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

are not limited to those which are ‘‘political in the

customary sense,” but include those which ‘‘pertain

to the sccial, legal, and economic benefit of the mem-

bers.’’ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483

(1965). Specifically, constitutionally protected asso-

ciations include that between wife and husband. Gris-

wold, at 486.

In Roe v. Wade, 41 Law Week 4213, 4225 (January

22, 1973), in the context of a discussion of the consti-

tutional guarantee of personal privacy, the Supreme

Court of the United States observed that included

within the guarantee are ‘‘only personal rights that

can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the con-

cept of ordered liberty.’ Palko v. Connecticut, 302

U.S. 312, 325 (1937),’’ and added that the right of

personal privacy ‘‘has some extension to activities

relating to... family relationships, Prince v. Massa-

chusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944), and child rearing

and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.

510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390,

399 (1923) ].’’

I conclude tliat a father enjoys a right to asso-

ciate with his children; that this right is guaranteed

by the First Amendment as incorporated in the Four-

teenth; alternatively, that this right is embodied in

the concept of ‘‘liberty’’ as that word is used in the

9

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

that, whatever the constitutional provision or provi-

sions by which it is protected, the right is funda-

mental.

This recognition that the rights embodied in the Con-

stitution of the United States include that of association

between parent and child can also be clearly discerned

from critical language employed by Justice White in the

majority opinion in Stanley v. Illinois, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 405

U.S. 645, 31 L.Ed. 2d 551:

The private interest here, that of a man in the

children he has sired and raised, undeniabiy warrants

deference and, absent a powerful countervailing in-

terest, protection. It is plain that the interest of a

parent in the companionship, care, custody, and man-

agement of his or her children ‘‘ecome[s] to this Court

with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is

made to liberties which derive merely from shifting

economie arrangements.’’ Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S.

77, 95, 93 L.Ed. 513, 527, 69 S.Ct. 448, 10 ALR 2d 608

(1949) (eoneurring opinion).

The court has frequently emphasized the importance

of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise

one’s children have been deemed ‘‘essential,’’ Meyer

v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 1045,

43 S.Ct. 625, 29 ALR 1446 (1923), ‘‘basie civil rights

of man,’’ Skinner vy. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 86

L.Ed. 1655, 1660, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), and ‘‘[r]ights

far more precious . . . than property rights,’ May

v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L.Ed. 1221, 1226, 73

S.Ct. 840 (1953). ‘It is cardinal with us that the

custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in

the parents, whose primary function and freedom in-

elude preparation for obligations the state can neither

supply nor hinder.”’ Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S.

158, 166, 88 L.Ed. 645, 652, 64 S.Ct. 438 (1944). The

10

integrity of the family unit has found protection in the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,

Meyer v. Nebraska, supra at 399, 67 L.Ed. at 1045,

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, Skinner vy. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, 86 L.Ed at

1660, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecti-

eut, 381 U.S. 479, 496, 14 L.Ed. 2d 510, 522, 85 S.Ct.

1678 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring). 31 L.Ed. 2d

at 558-559.

It is respectfully submitted that the United States Su-

preme Court should take this opportunity to announce the

constitutional rights and protections attendant thereto of a

parent to associate with his child.

Il.

A PARENT IS ENTITLED TO CERTAIN ELEMEN-

TARY DUE PROCESS PROTECTION OF HIS RIGHT

TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS CHILD.

Since the right of a father to associate with his child

is embodied in -the Constitution it is axiomatic that ele-

mentary due process protections are a corollary of that

right. A constitutional right does not exist in a vacuum.

As an essential protection of the constitutional right a

citizen is entitled to procedural due process before the right

ean be forfeit. The essentials of such due process are

legally fixed standards—that is, an articulated body of

law of understandable meaning denominating under what

circumstances and by what standards the right may be

forfeit—notice that the right is challenged, a hearing di-

rected to the issues and a meaningful review procedure.

Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948), In Re Gault, 387

U.S. 1 (1967), Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), Breithaupt

v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 US.

360 (1964) and Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399

(1966).

~ SYED Pee UE eT =e ie : MGR ES IP EF EN ne

37

iL

\

With respect to the right of a parent to associate with

a child it is respectfully submitted that where that right

is to be limited or forfeit it if Incumbent that standards

be established, both substantive and procedural, by which

to test the denial of the right. In other words before visita-

tion be denied a father with his child he should be fur-

nished notice that his right to associate with his child is

in jeopardy, the standards which obtain to determine

whether visitation shall be denied, a hearing vuder the

standards established, findings and, if the hearing be

judicial, an opportunity to obtain review of the findings.

As Justice Black stated, In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 1

(1955) :

**. . . to perform its high function in the best way,

justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’’

Ir.

THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED ELEMEN-

TARY DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE DENIAL OF

VISITATION RIGHTS OF HIS CHILD.

On the facts in the case at bar it is respectfully submitted

that the petitioner has been denied the essentials of due

process in many fundamental respects. Principally, of

course, the constitutional right involved has not been recog-

nized during the course of the litigation. Where the right

is not acknowledged there is little pretense of due process

accorded that right. In the case at bar petitioner was

given no formal notice that his right to associate with his

child was in jeopardy and the denial of the visitation, both

temporary and finat, was accomplished without application

of standards, findings or review. At no time have any

standards been identified nor findings directed to those

~

12

~

standards on the issue of the forfeiture of the petitioner’s

right to associate with his child. As is usually the case

where the legal processes refuse to recognize constitutional

rights all of the accompanying due process rights are

trampled.

The right of the petitioner has been violated essentially

in the refusal of the legal system to consider the question.

Paradoxically, the constitutional right involved has been

denied without considering its existence.

CONCLUSION -

For the reasons stated above certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Samson, Friesert, Sutton,

Fixerty & Burns

Rosert E. Sutton

710 North Plankinton Avenue

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

Attorneys for the Petitioner

~

BI ese AT oN TREE ENE PIT ARIE BOAR E RS

SD TE BRI MERGE LSAT RTT OPEL TRIN 107 8

EULER API. TES EEN Te

FUSS ts =

APPENDIX

OPINION OF SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

Office of the Clerk

SUPREME COURT

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Robert O. Uehling

Clerk Madison, January 4, 1974

Kolbe, Sharp & Arena

To 212 Fifth Street

Racine, WI 53403

Samson, Friebert, Sutton & Finerty

710 North Plankinton Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53203

Helm, Myers, Gillett & Christensen

727 Wisconsin Avenue

Racine, WI 53403

Sir:—The Court today announced decision in your case

as follows:

No. 463 Joyce Ann Wagner v. Willard Dale Wagner

The motion of plaintiff-respondent to dismiss the appeal

having been considered by the court, and the court having

determined that judgment wes granted in this case on

December 22, 1972, although not entered until May 15,

1973,

IT IS ORDERED that the appea! insofar as it seeks

review of paragraphs 3, 7, and 12 of the judgment entered

on May 15, 1973, providing respectively for support pay-

App. 2

Summons

ments, fees of the guardian ad litem, and yearly payments

to the clerk of circuit court, is timely. In all other respects

the appeal is dismissed. No costs to be taxed.

Respectfully yours,

ROBERT O. UEHLING

Clerk of Supreme Court.

(236 E4)

SUMMONS, PETITION AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

SUMMONS

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNTY COURT . RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyce Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Defendant.

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, to the said defendant:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED AND REQUIRED

to serve upon James J. Fetek, plaintiff’s attorney, whose

address is 1630 Douglas Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, an

answer or other pleading to the complaint for divorce with-

in twenty (20) days after such complaint is served upon

you. In the absence of a court order to the contrary, serv-

ice of such complaint upon you shall be delayed for sixty

(60) days after service of this summons. If no copy of

App. 3

Petition

the complaint is served upon you after such sixty (60)

days have passed, you may in the next twenty (20) days

thereafter demand in writing of the plaintiff’s attorney

a copy of the complaint. If 2 fail to answer or defend

the above entitled action in the Court aforesaid, judgment

will be rendered against you according to the demand of

the complaint.

JAMES J. FETEK

Attorney for Plaintiff.

P. O. ADDRESS

1630 Douglas Avenue

Racine, Wisconsin

APPROVED:

/s/ Joyce Ann Wagner

JOYCE ANN WAGNER

PETITION

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNT COURT RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyce Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin, ;

Defendant.

Now comes Joyce Ann Wagner, the plaintiff above

named, and respectfully shows unto the Court as follows:

FIRST: That your petitioner is the plaintiff in the above

entitled action and her husband, Willard Dale Wagner, is

the defendant therein; and that said action is an action

for absolute divorce.

PEED SS OMAP y _ GRTEFB IIT WE WATE

App. 4

Petition

SECOND: That the parties hereto have one (1) minor

child and that the plaintiff is a fit and proper person to

have the custody of the said child during the pendency

of this action.

THIRD: That the plaintiff verily believes that it is im- .

proper for the defendant to reside in the premises oc-

cupied by her.

FOURTH: That the plaintiff does not have sufficient

funds with which to support herself and the said minor

child during the pendency of this action.

“FIFTH: That the plaintiff believes that the defendant is

likely to interfere with her personal liberty, her eus-

tody of the minor child and come upon the premises oc-

cupied by her as a private dwelling unless restrained by

an order of this Court.

SIXTH: That the plaintiff believes the defendant is

likely to encumber or dispose of his property or remove

same out of the state unless restrained by an order of

this Court.

WHERLFORE, plaintiff prays that the Court enter an

Order requiring the defendant to appear and show cause;

Why the plaintiff should not be awarded the care, cus-

tody and control of the minor child of the parties during

the pendency of this action.

Why the defendant should not be restrained from dis-

posing of or encumbering any of the property of the

parties during the pendency of this action.

Why the defendant should not be restrained from inter-

fering with the personal liberty of the plaintiff during

the pendency of this action.

: Prryae

mene ee a a ela ae a PRR RT SISSON BREE ty FSS

App. 5

Petition

Why the defendant should not be restrained from in-

curring liability by and with pledging the credit of the

plaintiff for said liability.

Why the defendant should not be required to pay the

attorney fees to be incurred by the plaintiff in this action.

Plaintiff further prays that the Court forthwith enter

a temporary order restraining the defendant from inter-

fering with the personal liberty of the plaintiff and from

going upon the premises occupied by the plaintiff, and

from disposing of or encumbering any property of the

parties pending the hearing on said Order to Show Cause.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of September,

1970.

/s/ Joyce Ann Wagner

JOYCE ANN WAGNER

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

;.

COUNTY OF RACINE )

Joyee Ann Wagner, being first duly sworn on oath, de-

poses and says that she is the plaintiff and petitioner in

the above entitled action, that she has read the foregoing

Petition and knows the contents thereof, and that the same

is true to her own knowledge, except as to those matters

therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters she believes it to be true.

/s/ Joyce Ann Wagner

JOYCE ANN WAGNER

Subscribed and sworn to before

me this 23rd day of September,

1970.

/s/ James J. Fetek

James J. Fetek

Notary Public, Racine County, Wis.

My Commission Is Permanent.

App. 6

Order to Show Cause and Restraining Order

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

RESTRAINING ORDER

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNTY COURT RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyce Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd. Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Defendant.

IT IS ORDERED, that the defendant, Willard Dale

Wagner, show cause before me, the undersigned, Harold

R. Sheets, the Family Court Commissioner for Racine

County, Wisconsin, at the first floor hearing room in the

Racine County Courthouse, 730 Wisconsin Avenue, Racine,

Wisconsin on the 28th day of October, at 1:45 o’clock

in the afternoon of said day, or as soon thereafter as coun-

sel can be heard;

Why the plaintiff should not be awarded the care, cus-

tody and control of the minor child of the parties during

the pendency of this action.

Why the defendant should not be required to pay a

reasonable sum weekly as temporary alimony and for the

support and maintenance of the minor child of the parties

during the pendency of this action;

Why the defendant sould not be required to pay the

attorney fees to be incurred by the plaintiff in this action.

App. 7

Order to Show Cause and Restraining Order

Why the defendant should not be restrained from in-

curring any liability by and with pledging the credit of

the plaintiff for said liability.

Why the defendant should not be restrained and en-

joined from interfering with the personal liberty of the

plaintiff and from going upon the premises occupied by

the plaintiff, and from disposing of or encumbering any

of the property of the parties during the pendency of

this acticz.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hear-

ing upon this Order to Show Cause the defendant shall be

and he hereby is restrained and enjoined from interfering

with the personal liberty of the plaintiff, and from cash-

ing, disposing or converting to his exclusive use of any

money, funds, property or wages coming into his pos-

session.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending the hearing

on the Order to Show Cause the defendant shall forthwith

and immediately vacate and remove from apartment No.

233 of the parties at 5000 Graceland Blvd., Recine, Wiscon-

sin, and that the plaintiff is awarded the exclusive pos-

session hereof pending the hearing upon this Order to

Show Cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall

produce a wage statement from his employer for eight (8)

weeks immediately preceding the hearing upon this Order

to Show Cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant be re-

strained from incurring any liability by and with pledging

the credit of the plaintiff for said liability.

App. 8

Temporary Order

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED inact a copy o7 this

Order, together with a copy of the annexed Petition be

served upon the defendani at least 48 hours before the

time fixed for hearing.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of September,

1970.

/s/ Harold R. Sheets

Family Court Commissioner for

Racine County, Wisconsin

TEMPORARY ORDER

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNTY COURT RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyee Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Defendant.

The Order to Show Cause in the above entitled action

dated September 23, 1970, having duly come on for hearing

before the Honorable Harold R. Sheets, Family Court

Commissioner for Racine County, Wisconsin, on the 30th

day of October, 1970; the plaintiff appearing in person

and by James J. Fetek, her attorney, and the defendant

appearing in person without counsel;

Upon the testimony of the parties and upon the record

and file herein;

App. 9

Temporary Order

IT IS ORDERED that during the pendency of this

action and until the further order of the Court, the defen-

dant shall pay the sum of Eighty and No/100 ($80.00)

Dollars per week for the temporary support of the plain-

tiff and the minor child of the parties. Said payments shall

commence on Friday, November 6, 1970, and shall be

made each Friday thereafter to the Office of the Clerk of

the County Court, Family Court Branch for Racine County,

Wisconsin.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the defendant shall

pay the November rental due upon the apartment present-

ly oceupied by the plaintiff and shall maintain in full force

and effect the existing hospitalization insurance of the

parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the defendant shall

pay to James J. Fetek, attorney for the plaintiff, the sum

of $480.00 to be applied toward the attorney fees and

costs of the plaintiff in this action. Said amount shall

be paid in monthly installments of $50.00 commencing on

November 6, 1970, and shall thereafter be paid upon the

first Friday of each month.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that during the pendency

of this action and until the further order of the Court,

the care, custody and control of the minor child of the

parties shall be awarded to the plaintiff without visitation

rights of the defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that during the pen-

dency of this action said parties and each of them shal!

be and they hereby are restrained and enjoined from

transferring, mortgaging, selling or disposing of any of

their property, real or personal, and the defendant is

App. 10

Affidavit —

further hereby restrained and enjoined from interfering

with the personal liberty of the plaintiff and her custody

of the minor child of the parties, and from coming upon

the premises occupied by the plaintiff as a dwelling.

HEREOF FAIL NOT UPON PENALTY OF CON-

TEMPT.

Dated this 3rd Day of November, 1970.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Harold R. Sheets

Family Court Commissioner for

Racine County, Wisconsin

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNTY COURT RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyee Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd. Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin, :

Defendant.

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

) ss.

COUNTY OF RACINE )

JOYCE ANN WAGNER, being first duly sworn on oath,

deposes and says:

That your affiant is the plaintiff in the above entitled

action ;

That the defendant in the above entitled action, Willard

Dale Wagner, has abused the minor child of the parties

on numerous occasions in the presence of your affiant;

App. 11

Complaint

That, upon information and belief, any visitation rights

granted to the defendant would be detrimental to the best

imterest of said child.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this -.......... day of November,

1970.

JOYCE AN... WAGNER

Subscribed and sworn to before

me this ............ day of November, 1970.

James J. Fetek .

Notary Public, Racine County, Wis.

My Commission Is Permanent.

COMPLAINT

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COUNTY COURT RACINE COUNTY

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyee Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Defendant.

Now comes the plaintiff above named by James J. Fetek,

her attorney, and for her cause of action against the above

named defendant respectfully alleges and shows unto the

Court as follows:

FIRST: That the plaintiff, age 35, resides at 5000 Grace-

land Boulevard in the Town of Mt. Pleasant, Racine Coun-

ty, Wisconsin, and is a housewife by occupation.

“S\ App. 12

Complaint

SECOND: That the defendant, age 47, upon information

and belief, resides at 5828 Douglas Avenue in the Town

of Caledonia, Racine County, Wisconsin, and is by occupa-

tion a sales representative presently unemployed.

THIRD: That the parties to this action were married at

Kenosha, Wisconsin on November 25, 1967, and ever since

have been and now are husband and wife.

FOURTH: That one (1) child has been born of the mar-

riage of the parties, to-wit:

Susanne Dayle Wagner—Born July 26, 1968

FIFTH: That the parties have been bona fide residents

of the County of Racine, State of Wisconsin for more than

two years next preceeding the commencement of this

action.

SIXTH: That no other action for divorce, legal separa-

tion or annulment of marriage is now pending between

the parties before this or any other Court or judge there-

of in this state or elsewhere. “

SEVENTH: That the parties possess the following de-

scribed property, to-wit:

A) Household furniture and furnishings.

B) A 1966 Sunbeam automobile in the name of the

plaintiff.

C) A 1967 Volkswagon automobile in the name of the

defendant.

D)

E)

F)

G)

H)

App. 13

Complaint

An undivided one-half (14) interest of the plaintiff

in approximately 30 acres of undeveloped real

estate located in the Town of Caledonia, Racine,

County, Wisconsin, which real estate is subject to

a mortgage to the North Side Bank of Racine,

Wisconsin.

80 acres of undeveloped rea! estate located in the

County of Jackson, State of Minnesota, in the

name of the defendaut. which real estate was sold

by contract for deed on January 12, 1968, to one

Ray C. Wagner, a brother of the defendant.

An undetermined amount of cash or savings ac-

counts in the possession of, or under the control

of, the defendant.

A checking account of the plaintiff in the Security

National Bank of Racine, Wisconsin in a nominal

amount.

A checking account of the defendant in the First

National Bank and Trust Company of Racine in

a nominal amount.

EIGHTH: That the defendant has been guilty of cruel

and inhuman treatment toward the plaintiff as set forth

in Section 247.07 (4) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

NINTH: That the plaintiff is a fit and proper person to

have the care and custody and control of the minor child

of the parties.

Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment as follows:

FIRST: That she be granted an absolute divorce from

the bonds of matrimony.

App. 14

Complaint

SECOND: That she be awarded exclusive care, custody

and control of the minor child of the parties.

THIRD: That she be granted alimony and such division

of the estate of the parties as may be just and equitabie.

FOURTH: That she receive such other and further relief

as may be just and equitable.

JAMES J. FETEK

Attorney for Plaintiff.

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

) ss.

COUNTY OF RACINE )

JOYCE ANN WAGNER, being first duly sworn on oath,

deposes and says that she is the plaintiff in the above

entitled action, that she has read the foregoing Complaint

and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true

to her own knowledge, except as to those matters therein

alleged on information and belief, and as to those mat-

ters she believes it to be true.

/s/ Joyce Ann Wagner

JOYCE ANN WAGNER

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 18th day of December, 1970.

James J. Fetek

James J. Fetek

Notary Public, Racine County, Wis.

My Commission Is Permanent.

App. 15

Amended Complaint

AMENDED COMPLAINT

STATE OF WISCONSIN RACINE COUNTY

COUNTY COURT — FAMILY COURT BRANCH

JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLARD DALE WAGNER,

Defendant.

Now comes the Plaintiff above named by DUANE L.

ARENA, her attorney, and for her cause of action against

the above named Defendant, respectfully alleges and shows

unto the Court as follows:

FIRST: That the Plaintiff, age 35, resides at 5000

Graceland Boulevard in the Town of Mt. Pleasant,

Racine County, Wisconsin, and is a housewife by occupa-

tion.

SECOND: That the Defendant, age 47, upon informa-

tion and belief, resides at 5828 Douglas Avenue in the Town

of Caledonia, Racine County, Wisconsin, and is by oc-

cupation a sales representative presently unemployed.

THIRD: That the parties to this action were married

in Kenosha, Wisconsin on November 25, 1967 and ever

since have been and now are husband and wife.

FOURTH: That one (1) child has been born of the

marriage of parties, to-wit:

Suzanne Dayle Wagner

born: July 26, 1968

App. 16

Amended Complaint

FIFTH: That the parties have been bona fide resident

of the County of Racine, State of Wisconsin for more than

two (2) years next preceding the commencement of this

action.

SIXTH: That no other action for divorce, legal separa-

tion or annulment of marriage is now pending between the

parties before this or any other Court or Judge thereof in

this State or elsewhere.

SEVENTH: That the Defendant has been guilty of

cruel and inhuman treatment toward the Plaintiff as set

forth in Section 247.07(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes and

that the parties have voluntarily lived entirely apart in

excess of one (1) year contrary to Section 247.07(6) of the

Wisconsin Statutes.

EIGHTH: That the Plaintiff is a fit and proper person

to have the care, custody and control of the minor child

of the parties.

WHEREFORE: the Plaintiff prays judgment as fol-

lows:

1. That she be granted an absolute divorce from the

bonds of matrimony

2. That she be awarded exclusive care, custody and con-

trol of the minor child of the parties.

3. That she be granted alimony and such division of

the estate of the parties as may be just and equitable

4. That she receive such other and further relief as

may be just and equitable

DUANE L. ARENA

Attorney for Plaintiff

‘

Te teal the eae tet ae, * SO OE CN CN DEIN SREY RTO TOE TE TS NCU RTE ONR LCR AHH OR AY MPP

App. 17

Order

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

* 8S

COUNTY OF RACINE “SR

JOYCE ANN WAGNER, being first duly sworn, on oath

deposes and says that she is the Plaintiff in the above

entitled action; that she has read the foregoing Amended

Complaint and knows the contents thereof and that the

same is true to her own knowledge, except as to those

matters therein alleged on information and belief, and as

to those matters she believes it to be true.

/s/

Joyce Ann Wagner

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

19 day of June, 1972.

/s/ Duane Arena

Notary Public-Racine County, Wisconsin

My Commission Is Permanent.

ORDER

November 24, 1970

STATE OF WISCONSIN RACINE COUNTY

COUNTY COURT — FAMILY COURT BRANCH

Joyce Ann Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, ‘Wisconsin,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Willard Dale Wagner, 5000 Graceland Blvd., Apt. 233

Racine, Wisconsin,

Defendant.

The Order to Show Cause in the above entitled action

having come on for hearing before the Court on the 24th

day of November, 1970; the plaintiff appearing in person

and by James J. Fetek, her attorney, and the defendant

Mee Rhy er " en yen, —

PAE LRM BV METI VT PORE OTM SI IR iS DSIRE TEMA TR YS AY AAEM AUS RAO eC HEE

Ve La elle

App. 18 .

Order

appearing in person and by Elisherra Schwartz, his at-

torney ;

Now Therefore, on motion of James J. Fetek, attorney

for the plaintiff, and based upon the oral stipulation of the

parties and the file herein;

IT IS ORDERED that the support payments required

of the deiendant shall be reduced to the sum of $70.00 per

week commencing Friday, November 27, 1970; provided,

however, that the existing support arrearages in the

amount of $160.00’ shall be fully paid by the defendant on

or before December 8, 1970, and that the temporary sup-

port required of the defendant shall be reviewable by the

Court upon employment of the defendant during the pend-

ency of this action;

It Is Further Ordered that the issue relating to visita-

tion rights of the defendant shall be heard by the Court

as a contested matter;

It Is Further Ordered that Einer Christensen, an at-

torney of this Court, is hereby appointed as guardian ad

litem for Suzanne Dayle Wagner, the minor child of the

parties, during the pendency of this action;

It Is Further Ordered that the parties to this action shall

be interviewed .by. and examined by the Racine County

Mental Health Clinic prior to the scheduling of the hear-

ing upon visitation rights of the defendant.

Dated this 4th day of December, 1970.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ John C, Ahlgrimm

Judge.

PPT SHLD eh ERVIN BION or " he ae Oe a nD oui i ee Ute aaa

App. 19

Order

CONSENT TO ACT

I hereby accept the above appointment and will discharge

the duties thereof to the best of my ability.

Dated this 7th day of December, 1970.

/s/ Einer Christensen

EINER CHRISTENSEN

August 31, 1971

STATE OF WISCONSIN RACINE COUNTY

COUNTY COURT

FAMILY COURT BRANCH

JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLARD DALE WAGNER,

Defendant.

The above entitled matter having come for hearing be-

fore the undersigned, on the 31st day of August, 1971; the

plaintiff appearing by her attorney, Duane Arena, and

the defendant appearing in person and with his attorney,

Robert P. Goodman; and having heard the statements of

counsel,

IT IS ORDERED:

FIRST. That Robert P. Goodman be substituted as at-

torney for the defendant in the above entitled action.

SUCOND. That the Schroeder Clinic, 500 Walton Ave-

nue, Racine, Wisconsin, is appointed to examine the plain-

tiff and defendant with respect to the question of visita-

RSI Le RNY ie tale kWh

pase

LTD ORR RMT, AIR

App. 20

Assignment of Action

tion by the defendant with the minor child of the parties

and said clinic shall submit its report to the Court with

copies to counsel for the plaintiff and defendant at the

earliest opportunity and that both the plaintiff and de-

fendant shall present themselves for examination at such

times as the Schroeder Clinic shall designate.

THIRD. That the question of delinquency in the sup-

port account and visitation by the defendant with the minor

child of the parties shall be determined at a hearing to be

set by the Clerk of this Court with notice to both parties.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of September,

1971.

By the Court.

/s/ John Ahlgrimm

Judge

ASSIGNMENT OF ACTION ore

STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF RACINE

COUNTY COURT

JOYCE A. WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLARD D. WAGNER,

Defendant.

The above entitled matter having been filed in County

Court Branch IV and the Defendant having asked for a

Change of Venue due to the prejudice of the Judge of

County Court Branch IV and the file having been referred

to the Clerk of the Circuit Court:

The above entitled action has been assigned, pursuant

to Chapter 253.18(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the

Judge of County Court Branch III, the Honorable Judge

Richard G. Harvey, Jr.

ee _ EITI SER . RS PS NET eee, Ts

App. 21

Petition for Relief

I certify that the attached documents are all of the orig-

inal documents which were referred to me and this certifi-

cation was made for the purpose of transmitting the papers

te County Court Branch III of Racine County.

WITNESS my signature and official seal on this 8th

day of February, 1972.

ec: Duane Arena

ec: Robert E. Sutton

Einar Christensen

/s/ Edw. F. Daley

Edw. F. Daley

Clerk of Circuit Court

PETITION FOR RELIEF

August Term, 1972

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN SUPREME COURT

Filed Sep. 28, 1972

WILLARD WAGNER,

Petitioner,

vs.

COUNTY COURT OF RACINE COUNTY, BRANCH 4,

RICHARD C. HARVEY, Judge and JOYCE ANN

WAGNER,

Respondents.

PER CURIAM. A petition by Willard Wagner has

been filed for leave to commence an original action for

habeas corpus, mandamus, or other relief, which would

raise primarily the question of whether or not Willard

Wagner may visit his daughter Suzanne Wagner. It ap-

pears a divorce action is pending involving the petitioner

App. 22

Request to Reconsider Petition

and his wife Joyce Ann Vargo Wagner and has been pend-

ing since September 25, 1970. During this two-year period,

the petitioner has been substantially denied visitation

rights with his child. The merits of the case were heard

on August 29, 1972, by the Honorable Richard C. Harvey,

County Judge, of Branch 4, of the County Court of Racine

County, and are now under consideration by the said

Judge Harvey. The parties are to file briefs by September

25, 1972.

Under the usual procedure, this matter should be decided

by Judge Harvey within 60 days from September 25,

1972, and until the expiration of such time this court does

not believe it advisable to entertain an action to determine

what the trial court has under advisement.

The petition for leave to commence an original action

of habeas corpus, mandamus, or for other appropriate re-

lief is therefore denied.

REQUEST TO RECONSIDER PETITION FOR

TEMPORARY VISITATION

December 15, 1972

Honorable E. Harold Hallows

Chief Justice—Supreme Court

State Capitol Building

Madison, Wisconsin 53702

Re: Wagner v. County Court of Racine County, et al

Near Justice Hallows:

In September of 1972, Attorney Robert Sutton pre-

sented a petition for leave to commence an original action

in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the above captioned

case on behalf of his client, Willard Wagner. The petition

SENT OTE TA PES

DAP Re PIR ey Wer Te

=

OE rt sa Tere em var)

App. 23

Request to Reconsider Petition

for leave to commence the action was denied by the court

by an order dated September 28, 1972. The order of the

court states the following:

‘‘Under the usual procedure this matter should be de-

cided by Judge Harvey within 60 days from September

25, 1972, and until the expiration of such time this

ecurt does not believe it advisable to entertain an

action to determine what the trial court has under

advisement.”’

The purpose of this lawsuit was to obtain visitation rights

which had been denied the petitioner during the period of

the divorce litigation and which rights are continuing to

be denied to the petitioner until the case is decided.

Subsequent to the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme

Court, Attorney Sutton commenced an action in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Wiscon-

sin entitled Wagner v. County Court of Racine County, et

al, 72-C-556. In that case, Mr. Wagner sought essentially

the same relief for visitation rights which had been de-

nied him throughout the period of the litigation and con-

tinues to be denied to him. A motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order in the federal court is currently being

considered by Judge Reynolds.

Judge Harvey responded to this federal action by order-

ing Attorney Sutton to show cause why he should not be

held in contempt. The affidavit executed by Judge Harvey

states, among other things, the following:

‘‘That the conduct of Attorney Sutton in commencing

this action [in the federal court] in the name of his

client, Willard Dale Wagner, represents a clear vio-

lation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,

in particular, Section EC 7-36 of said Code as stated

in 43 W.2d.”’

App. 24

Request to Reconsider Petition

On November 15, 1972, the contempt proceeding against

Attorney Sutton was removed to the federal court. That

ease is entitled Wagner v. Wagner, 72-C-626. Enclosed is

a copy of the Notice and the Petition for Removal which

contains Judge Harvey’s Order and affidavit. Judge

Harvey continued to pursue the contempt against Attor-

ney Sutton despite its having been removed to federal

eourt. Judge Robert Tehan ordered Judge Harvey to show

cause why he should not be restrained from further pro-

ceeding in the contempt matter due to the contempt matter

having been removed. In response, Judge Harvey ordered

Judge Tehan to show cause why he should not be re-

strained from further activity. A hearing was held before

Judge Tehan on December 4, 1972 and at the conclusion

of the hearing, Judge Tehan restrained Judge Harvey

from further proceedings in the contempt aspect of the

ease. A copy of Judge Tehan’s order is enclosed.

That afternoon, Judge Harvey adjourned further pro-

ceedings as appears by the transcript which is enclosed.

I then inquired of Judge Harvey by letter dated Decem-

ber 6, 1972 whether the entire matter was adjourned since

it was our understanding that the only matter removed to

federal court was the contempt aspect of the case. We also

objected to any adjournment of the issues involving the

divorce litigation which were under advisement. A copy

of my letter of December 6, 1972 is enclosed. By a letter

dated December 7, 1972, Corporation Counsel Flynn re-

sponded with the statement that all of the proceedings in

the Wagner case were adjourned.

We are thus faced with the prospect of further delay

in the resolution of the divorce issues and in particular the

issue involving visitation rights. I should point out that

the purpose in filing the original action in the Wisconsin

FORE I IOLA OE DF RN ~ RE AS PLT DO OE gh

RS Ta OEE Rar ow See

App. 25

Request to Reconsider Pettiton

Supreme Court and subsequently before Judge Reynolds

was to obtain interim review of the temporary order pre-

venting visitation which remained in effect until the merits

of the case in chief were resolved.

We are now beyond 60 days from September 25, 1972

and the case remains undecided and Willard Wagner re-

mains without visitation rights due to the temporary order

in the case. We therefore ask the court to reconsider the

petition which has previously been presented and to grant

Willard Wagner leave to commence the original action

which had previously been denied.

Very truly yours,

Samson, FRIEBERT,

Surron & Finerty

Rosert H. FRIEBERT

RHF :pap

Encs.

ec: Hon. Horace Wilkie

Hon. Bruce F. Beilfuss

Hon. Nathan S. Heffernan

Hon. Leo B. Hanley

Hon. Connor T, Hansen

Hon. Robert W. Hansen

Hon. Robert E. Tehan

Hon. John W. Reynolds

Hon. Richard G. Harvey

Mr. Duane L. Arena

Mr. Einer Christensen

Mr. Dennis Flynn

App. 26

Decision

DECISION

STATE OF WISCONSIN RACINE COUNTY

COUNTY COURT

BRANCH 4

JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLARD DALE WAGNER,

Defendant.

This action was commenced September 25, 1970, by service

of a Summons, Petition and Order to Show Cause. There

was a hearing on the Petition and Order to Show Cause

on October 30, 1970 and a Temporary Order was issued by

the Family Court Commissioner for temporary support, at-

torney fees, and custody. No visitation was provided for

the defendant in this order, under circumstances that will

be discussed later in this opinion. The defendant did

not secure counsel until sometime after the commencement

of the action. There were numerous motions in this case

because of depositions, psychiatric and psychological ex-

aminations, and requests for visitation rights on the part

of the defendant, Wagner. The plaintiff served a Com-

plaint on January 7, 1971, and the defendant served an

Answer and Counterclaim May 26, 1971, which was filed

December 21, 1971. The case was partially tried before

the Honorable John Ahlgrimm, Judge of County Court

Branch 4, who has been assigned to try Family Court

matters by the County Courts of Racine County, Wiscon-

sin. Judge Ahlgrimm heard four days of testimony, No-

vember 5, November 22, December 21, and December 22,

iv

we

App. 27

Decision

1971. On January 24, 1972, Judge Ahligrimm disqualified

himself, making the following statement:

‘‘Prior to todays adjourned trial date, and subsequent

to the last trial date, this Judge, presiding herein, has

been named as a party defendant in two civil proceed-

ings, one in the kederal Court and one in the Circuit

Court. The law firm representing the plaintiff in each

* of these actions is the same law firm which represents

the defendant in the proceedings before this court to-

day.”’

The Court explained the reasons for his decision, and con-

cluded by stating:

“‘Therefore, I am requesting that another judge be as-

signed to this case upon the Court’s own motion; that

an order be entered that this judge be disqualified for

cause and interest; that all present orders which the

Court has entered in respect to this present case shall

remain in full force and effect until such time that

another judge ve assigned, it can be heard.”

This case was subsequently assigned to this Court. This

Court held pretrial conferences and hearings on motions

on Mareh 27, April 24, and May 15, 1972, and proceeded

with the trial June 19, 20, 21st, 22, 28, 29 and August 22,

23, 24, 28, and 29. Briefs were submitted by ali parties on

or prior to September 25th, as requested by the Court.

Attorney Einer Christensen was appvinted as guardian

ad litem for Susan Wagner, the minor child of the parties

because of an accusation of serious misconduct on the part

of the defendant toward Susan, and to represent her in-

terests and protect her rights. Mr. Christensen has par-

ticipated in the trial in such capacity. It was obviously

necessary that the record of the testimony taken during the

four trial days before Judge Ahlgrimm be transcribed in

\

App. 28

Decision

order that the writer of this opinion could have this por-

tion of the record before him. The defendant asked that

visitation be granted to the defendant during the pendancy

of the action, and renewed his request at the close of the

trial. The plaintiff asked that the defendant be punished

for contempt of Court for failure to pay support money

as ordered under the temporary order of the Family Court

Commissioner, and by an order amending this temporary

order made by Judge Ahlgrimm. This Court refused to

disturb the proceedings previously made by the Family

Court Commissioner and Judge Ahlgrimm, for the reason

that this could not properly be done without a knowledge

of the entire record. The Court, likewise, refused to rule

on the question of contempt, although the Court did make

a finding as to the amount of the arrearage of the defen-

dant as of November 29, 1972, in the amount of $3340.00.

The grounds relied upon by the plaintiff for her divorce

were cruel and inhuman treatment, and the grounds relied

upon for the defendant in his Counterclaim \-ere likewise

cruel and inhuman treatment.

& a es

Bee

&.

ee

E

=

i

sy -

3

$a .

a -

3 2

Subsequent to the amendment to the divorce law, and

after the case had been assigned to this Court, the plaintiff

amended the Complaint to allege two and a half years of

voluntary separation, and to ask for divorce on this

ground.

Subsequent to the matter being taken under advisement

by the Court on September 25th, the defendant commenced

some type of proceeding in the Supreme Court, seeking

leave to commence an action for some type of compulsive

action against the Judge of this Court, which was denied

by the Supreme Court. The exact nature of this action

is unknown to the writer of this opihion, and the existence

FLT IPL IT NNT IER

yee x : . at Seon Ve eal Pee 2 Fee”

o

TENT YR appa min ret

App. 29

Decision

of this proceeding was not disclosed until a hearing before

the Federal Court, which will be mentioned later. On

October 11th, the defendant commenced an action in the

U.S. District Court, making the judge of this Court a

party defendant, seeking to have the Federal Court adjudi-

cate the question of visitation, a question then ‘‘sub

judice’’ as part of this action. This Court then cited de-

fense counsel, Robert Sutton, for contempt of Court for

so doing. The said Sutton then retaliated by seeking to

have the contempt proceeding removed to Federal Court

and subsequent to that action, prepared an Order to Show

Cause requiring the writer of this opinion to appear in

the U.S. District Court before the Honorable Robert Jehan

on a request for stay of proceedings in the contempt mat-

ter. This maneuver interrupted this Court’s business, with

a full arraignment calendar, scheduled at the same time as

the hearing in Federal Court. This Court felt, and feels,

that the Federal Court action, and the removal, or pur-

ported removal, of the contempt proceedings to the Fed-

eral Court, are entirely improper, and unconstitutional.

They represent additional events in what appears to be a

caleulated course of harassment of this Court, and the

Judge thereof. The contempt matter involving Robert

Sutton, and the contempt matter involving the defendant,

Wagner, are not dealt with in this decision, and will be the

subject of further proceedings which will be scheduled

in due course. —

The Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree

of divorce upon the grounds of cruel and inhuman treat-

ment practised by the defendant to and toward the plaintiff.

The Court further finds the plaintiff to be entitled to a

divorce upon the grounds of voluntary separation, the same

being the additional grounds for divorce alleged in the

BO es ane Sot oe ee AT ERS onan ,

yi 4 — ae SPREE 2 PRE LEI LOE IT! GLE LE NEL EEE LIES EIS INET IE HEL

—_

“App. 30

Decision

amended Complaint. The Court finds that the plaintiff is

a fit and proper person for the custody of Susan, the minor

child of the parties, and the custody of this child is

awarded to her. The Court finds that the defendant,- Wil-

lard Wagner, is not a fit and proper person to have the

custody of the minor child of the parties. The Court finds

that the defendant is not entitled to any of the relief

prayed for in his Counterclaim, and that the allegations

contained therein have not been proven.

The acts of cruel and inhuman treatiuent by the defen-

dant against the plaintiff were mostly performed, as is

usually the case, when only the two parties were present,

but there is solid corroboration of cruelty on the part of

the defendant toward the plaintiff in that when he re-

turned from a trip to Central America he admits he told

her of his sexual conquest of a call girl, or prostitute, and

also engendered in her a fear he had brought home venereal

disease, to such an extent she consulted her physician to

have tests made as to whether or not she had contracted

venereal disease from the defendant.

Additional «orroboration of cruel treatment toward the

plaintiff by the defendant is furnished from the fact that

the defendant admitted that he had repeatedly asked the

plaintiff to have an abortion performed, knowing that this

was contrary to her religion, and that this caused her great

anguish and was most offensive to her.

The defendant undermined his marriage by harping on

the subject of abortion, a proposal he knew to be offensive

to her. His accounts of his adventures with a call girl in

Costa Rica represent a piece of calculated cruelty, a

most effective way to wound the self esteem of a wife. The

creation of the fear of venereal disease in his wife shows

et 2 Tica, BESTA BNE TIAN SC SO A MP NE AERP SLE DEY Sl

App. 31

| Decision

the ingenuity of defendant’s capacity for cruelty, but not

its limits, as will be discussed in regard to his relations

with his daughter.

The big issue in this case is involved over the subject

of visitation of the child by the defendant. The plaintiff

has made detailed accusations that the defendant engaged

in the most loathsome type of behavior toward his infant

daughter, commencing at the age of two months. These

accusations were of such a nature that they would shock

the most calloused conscience. The big question is whether

or not these acts were in fact committed.

There is no direct corroboration of the charges. Both

parties submitted to lie detector tests, upon stipulation,

and the plaintiff passed her test. The defendant had one

inconclusive test, and two that he passed. The Psycho-

galvanometer word association test, administered to the

child, indicated some corroboration. Both parties were ex-

amined by psychiatrists and psychologists who have given

their opinions.

In reaching a decision on this subject, I have had the

benefit of observing the actions and general demeanor of

the parties in eleven court sessions. I am satisfied that

Mr. Wagner did not suffer hallucinations or delusions. I

am satisfied that a substantial portion of the acts she com-

plained of in the defendant, occurred. By this I mean that

the defendant engaged in acts toward the daughter in

which he consciously and deliberately created the illusion

that he was committing abnormal sexual acts toward his

daughter, and that his motivation was to wound and hurt

the plaintiff, in retaliation for feelings of frustration for

which he blamed her. Both Dr. Bacon, a witness for the

App. 32

Decision

plaintiff, and Dr. Geist, a witness for the deteudunt hint

that this is an explanation of the situation. After careful

observation of the parties, and considering the evidence

of the entire case as a whole, this is my finding as to what

happened between the defendant and his daughter. I do

not. find that he is a pedophiliac or sexual pervert

within the commonly accepted meaning of the term.

There must be discussion of the fact that the plaintiff

did not report the siutations between the defendant and

the child to anyone for a considerable period of time after

they occurred. She did not even tell her own attorney,

Mr. Fetek, until the second visit with him. Her first con-

ference had been to draft a will before she submitted to

surgery, and while she seemed disturbed, and the question

of the custody of the child in the event of her. death was

plainly on her mind, she did not disclose the activities of

her husband until later on. While Mrs. Wagner con-

sulted Dr. Coffey about the fear of venereal disease en-

gendered in her by the comments of the defendant, she

did not tell him about the situation, nor did she tell Dr.

Graf of the episode concerning the neck. I may say that

in this episode 1 doubt that the defendant injured the child

as Mrs. Wagner claimed, and I find that this allegation

has not been proven.

Mrs. Wagner wrote some very affectionate letters to

the defendant while he was in Greece, which appear to be

entirely inconsistent with the fact that the defendant had

been behaving as she had described, both toward her,

and toward the child. However, the events of her marriage

were of such a nature she naturally shrank from revealing

them to anyone, and she certainly is not the first woman

or the millionth woman in the world who has prolonged a

App. 33

Decision

wrecked marriage in the hope that her love, or the children,

might mend a situation which was incapable of being

mended.

While her behavior in this respect is difficult to under-

stand, I find it extremely difficult to understand how the

defendant cou!d make the bizarre ‘‘ Proposal of Settlement’’

te *he general effect that he would surrender custody of

his uaughter providing Judge Ahligrimm, the guardian

ad litem, Einer Christensen, and the attorney for the

plaintiff, Mr. Arena, would pay him damages in the amount

of $26,000 which was to be used to establish a trust fund

for Susan. Not only did the defendant have this proposi-

tion submitted to opposing counsel, but on some material

\ which he gave to Dr. Geist, his own psychiatrist, over his

own signature, he attached the following note:

‘‘Dear Dr. Geist,

I have written Bob Sutton my proposal for an out-

of-Court settlement. If you’re interested in my

terms regards Suzy, please request a copy of my.

letter from Bob.

Regards,

W. Wagner’”’

The fact that the defendant not only did not want to con-

ceal the existence of such an outlandish proposal, but ac-

tually wanted a psychiatrist to see it, demonstrated that

his contact with reality is precarious.

It is my further comment on this subject that in dis-

closing the existence of such a ridiculous idea to opposing

counsel, Mr. Sutton, the atterney for the defendant, shows

a serious lack of judgment. I cannot conceive of any at-

App. 34

Decision

torney who would not point out to a client the absolute un-

reality of such a proposal, and would not part company

with a client who insisted upon enunciating such a pro-

posal. This litigation has lasted for too long a time, and

both parties must have suffered very real torture. The

subject of visitation has become, what tue French refer to

as ‘‘idee fixee’’ with the defendant, and refusing visita-

tion has become ‘‘idee fixee’’ with the plaintiff.

It is my finding that the denial of the right of visitation

by the Family Court Commissioner, by Judge Ahigrimm,

and by this Court to date, have been entirely proper con-

sidering the facts available as the case unfolded, and the

horrible nature of the charges made. Anyone who would

have acted differently then the Family Court Commis-

sioner and Judge Ahligrimm acted, would be subject to

severe criticism in my opinion. The defendant’s own acts

caused him to be deprived of visitation with his child

during the pendency of this action. His deprivation was

caused by his own misconduct, and was prolonged by the

bull-necked attitude of himself, and his present counsel.

Having reached the conclusion that the activities com-

plained of by the mother were part of the defendant’s

course of cruel and inhuman treaiment toward the plaintiff,

and that the defendant was not what is commonly calied

a sexual pervert, I find that he may safely be given visita-

tion rights in the future, under certain conditions. First

of all this must be handled with great delicacy so that the

child is not injured. To date she appears to be a happy,

healthy youngster, possibly somewhat dependent on her

mother, but in general well adjusted. It may be said

that the plaintiff is doing an excellent job of rearing the

child, considering the handicaps she has worked under.

App. 35

Decision

This situation must not be fractured, and the transition

must be smooth, gradual and as free of tension as possible.

My reason for granting the visitation are that once a

divorcee has occurred, the prime motivation for cruel be-

havior by the defendant toward the plaintiff will disap-

pear, particularly as time passes. I am satisfied that if his

motivation to hurt his wife is removed, that his relations

with his daughter will become normal. Secondly, so much

attention has been focused on this situation, that I am sure

that the defendant would lean over backward in his con-

tacts and actions with his daughter to prevent them from

being misunderstood.

The Court calls attention to the fact that although Dr.

Geist and Dr. Fredenthal have both called attention to

serious emotional problems in the defendant, he has ap-

parently done nothing whatsoever to secure counseling

from either of these men, and appears to be unaware that

he is in need of help. The Court formed a favorable im-

pression of Dr. Geist, and it is the Court’s order and

requirement and conc :ion that the defendant must consult

with Dr. Geist for a period of six months to learn to un-

derstand himself, and the nature of his emotional prob-

lems. When this has been done, and Dr. Geist so reports

to the Court, and indicates that visits may commence, the

Court will make proper orders to give the defendant rights

of visitation with the daughter of the parties. These

probably will be controlled visits, at least at first, but as

the child gets older, it may very well be that different ar-

rangements may result. The Court is also aware that

Mrs. Wagner, the plaintiff, is in need of counseling to un-

derstand the situation as it will develop in regard to the

subject of visitation. The Court directs she consult some-

App. 36

Decision

one from the Schroeder or Bacon Clinic at her choice, for

counseling and guidance, and that before the arrangements

are completed for visitation, she have one conference with

Dr. Geist, in the presence of the defendant, and that like-

wise the defendant shall participate in one conference with

Mrs. Wagner’s psychiatrist or psychologist prior to the

visitations. The Court foresees some difficulties and an-

guish in making the initial arrangements, but believes it

is capable of being worked out so that the tension will

gradually ease in the future. The Court will schedule a

hearing on the subject of visitation arrangements in June

or July of 1973, upon receiving advice from Dr. Geist and

Mrs. Wagner’s psychiatrist that arrangements are sub-

stantially complete. If difficulties arise as to preliminary

steps, the Court will resolve these matters upon presenta-

tion by motion. In the meantime, and until changed by the

Court, as indicated above, there will be no visitation by

the defendant. The Court has not considered any of the

contents of Defendant’s Exhibit ‘‘W’’ in reaching its con-

clusion, this being the affidavit of Barbara Ann Ristine,

former wife of the defendant. The Court has received

Defendant’s Exhibits ‘‘B’’ through ‘‘G’’, has settled the

question of Mr. Fetek’s testimony by requiring it to be

presented, and believes it has ruled on all disputed ques-

tions of evidence. In the event that some have been over-

looked, counsel may bring these to the Court’s attention

by motion in order that the record in this case will be as

complete and accurate as possible, in as much as the Court

anticipates the possibility of appeal and further litigation.

The Court awards to the plaintiff such items of household

goods, furniture, furnishings and personal belongings as

are presently in her possession. That includes her Sun-

beam automobile, if this is still owned by her. The Court

App. 37

Decision

awards to the defendant his Volkswagen automobile and

such items of hougehold goods, furniture, furnishings, and

personal belongings as are in his possession. If there are

some items not covered by this general award, the parties

may present their claims by motion so that the record will

be complete on this subject also. The Court awards to the

plaintiff real estate purchased by herself and her brother,

and any proceeds thereof presently in her possession. The

Court awards to the defendant the property in Minnesota

and any proceeds accruing to him from the sale thereof.

This property division is made as a final division of the

estate of the parties, and in lieu of all alimony, leaving

out the question of arrearages. The Court awards the

plaintiff judgment against the defendant in the amount of

$3,340, representing arrearages accruing in temporary ali-

mony and support money required by prior orders of the

Court. It appears that the defendant, although being seri-

ously in arrearage on payments required by prior orders

of the Court, has spent money freely for legal expenses.

The Court feels that most of the burden for this protract-

ed litigation falls upon the defendant, and therefore, the

Court orders that 75% of the attorney fees for the plain-

tiff be paid by the defendant, and judgment be entered ac-

cordingly in the amount of $3,779.55.

The question of compensation for the guardian ad litem

has not been argued or discussed to any extent and neither

has the question of who should pay for the transcription

of the proceedings had in this case before Judge Ahl-

grimm. The appointment of the guardian ad litem was

unquestionably proper and the Court feels that Mr. Chris-

App. 38

Decision

tensen rendered valuable services in the case. The matter of

Mr. Christensen’s compensation and the source of pay-

ment thereof, and the transcripts, and any other unre-

solved matters alluded to in this opinion, or omitted in-

advertently from this opinion, will be heard, considered

and ruled on at a hearing to be held before the Court on

some convenient evening session during the week of Janu-

ary 25, 1973, and the Court will conduct a pretrial hearing

on all unresolved matters, rulings and incidental problems

at 7:30 P.M., January 22, 1973, in the courtroom, during

which pretrial hearing a schedule will be set up for hear-

ing and disposing of all matters, including the imperfec-

tion and completion of the record in this case.

Counsel for the plaintiff may prepare findings and judg-

ment in accord with this opinion, submit them to counsel

for defendant, and to the Court for final approval.

After the supplemental proceedings, supplemental find-

ings and a supplemental judgment will be prepared.

Dated at Racine, Wisconsin this 22nd day of December

1972.

By The Court:

Richard G. Harvey

Judge

App. 39

Proposal of Findings and Conclusions

PROPOSAL OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

(Received May 10, 1973)

(Letterhead of Kolbe, Sharp & Arena)

May 9, 1973

Honorable Richard Harvey

Racine County Courthouse

Racine, Wisconsin 53403

RE: Wagner -vs- Wagner

Dear Judge Harvey:

Enclosed herein is the original Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law and the original and two (2) copies

of the Judgment with regard to the above matter. Lastly,

we are enclosing herein a certificate for the Clerk’s sig-

nature.

On April 24, 1973, I sent copies of the Findings and

Judgment to opposing counsel and to the guardian ad

litem and I requested that should there be any objection to

the Findings or Judgment that such objection be made

within ten (10) days. I further indicated that if uo ob-

jection was made within ten days, that I would assume

there was no objection to the form of the Findings or

Judgment.

Upon re-reading the Judgment and Conclusions, I no-

ticed in Paragraph Eighth that I inadvertantly left out

the phrase ‘‘of visitation’’. Accordingly, I added said

phrase after the phrase ‘‘on the issue’’ so that the state-

ment, in effect, is as follows: ‘‘. . . upon a receipt of a

medical report by Dr. Geist giving his recommendations

on the issue of visitation .. .’’ I trust that the addition

of said two words is agreeable by all parties herein.

App. 40

Notice of Entry of Judgment

It would be appreciated if you would sign the Findings

and the Judgment and have the same filed. I am sending

a copy of this letter to the attorneys for the Defendant

and the guardian ad litem for their records. .

Very truly yours,

Duane L. Arena

DLA/cll

Enclosures

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

(Received May 23, 1973)

(Letterhead of Kolbe, Sharp & Arena)

May 22, 1973

Samson, Freibert, Sutton

& Finerty

Attorneys at Law

710 North Plankinton

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

RE: Joyce Ann Wagner -vs- Willard Dale Wagner

I am enclosing herein a copy of the Notice Of Entry Of

Judgment with regard to the above entitled matter. Please

be advised that the same is being served upon you by

Affidavit Of .Mailing. .

Very truly yours,

Duane L. Arena

Duane L. Arena

DLA/ell

Enclosure

App. 41

Petition for Extraordinary Writ

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

August Term, 1973

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

WILLARD WAGNER,

Petitioner,

vs.

COUNTY COURT OF RACINE COUNTY, Branch 4,

Richard C. a J udge, and JOYCE ANN WAGNER,

Respondents.

(Filed August 30, 1973)

Per Curt. Willard Wagner has petitioned this court

for a writ to commence an original action of habeas cor-

pus or mandamus against the county court of Racine

County, branch number 4, and Richard C. Harvey, Circuit

Judge, presiding, on the ground the petitioner has a con-

stitutional right to visit his daughter, which has been de-

nied him. Willard Wagner was ‘the defendant in a divorce

action pending in the county court of Racine county during

which time the exercise of his right to visit his child was

denied. In the decision of December 22, 1972, the trial

court explained the reasons why tke exercise of the right

of the father Willard Wagner to visit his child was to

be denied for an additional six months and laid certain

conditions upon both Mr. Wagner and Mrs. Wagner which

App. 42

Petition for Extraordinary Writ

should be complied with prior to the exercise of visitation

rights by Mr. Wagner with his daughter who is allegedly

now approximately five years of age.

Shortly before filing this petition, Mr. Wagner filed an

appeal in this court which raises the question of the rea-

sonableness of the limitations on the exercise of his right

of visitation with his daughter. This court considers the

trial court has not denied the existence of a visitation

right, constitutionally grounded or otherwise, of Mr. Wag-

ner to visit his daughter but has placed certain conditions

upon the exercise of that right. We are informed on oral

argument that Mr. Wagner has refused to comply with

those conditions. The propriety of the trial court’s action

in this respect is the subject matter of the appeal which

will afford Mr. Wagner ample remedy to raise the issue

he seeks to raise by this original action.

If Mr. Wagner considers himself aggrieved pending ap-

peal, he may apply to this court for temporary relief.

There being an adequate remedy by an appeal, the mo-

tion for a writ to commence an original action of habeas

corpus or mandamus is denied.

<a aye s Per et 2 Re SRR ng a see pera we aH

App. 43

Notice of Paging of the Record

NOTICE OF PAGING OF THE RECORD

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

Office of Clerk

Madison, Wisconsin

August Term, 1973

Date October 25, 1973

No. 463

Gentlemen:

Joyce Ann Wagner,

. Respondent,

v.

Willard Dale Wagner,

Appellant.

Please take notice that the record in the above cause has

been filed this date. See Rules 251.29 and 251.43.

Robert O. Uehling, Clerk

To: Kolbe, Sharp & Arena

Attn: Duane L. Arena

Racine

Samson, Freibert, Sutton

& Finerty, Milwaukee

Attn: Robt. E. Sutton

Einer Christensen

Guardian ad litem for

Suzanne Wagner, Racine

(copy sent to Wagner 10/26/73)

Tt SRL aT FP alc Oe

App. 44

Decision of Supreme Court of Wisconsin

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF

WISCONSIN

Office of the Clerk

SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin

Robert O. Uehling

Clerk

Madison, November 27, 1973

To Kolbe, Sharp & Arena

Attorneys at Law

212 - 5th Street

Racine, WI 53403

Samson, Friebert, Sutton & Finerty

Attorneys at Law

710 No. Plankinton Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53203

Mr. Einer Christensen, g/a/1

727 Wisconsin Avenue

Racine, WI 53403

Sir:—The Court today announced decision in your case

as follows:

Joyee Ann Wagner v. Willard Dale Wagner, #463

Pursuant to order to show cause herein, after hearing

counsel on November 21, 1973, including the guardian ad

litem,

It Is Ordered that no showing having been made for the

granting of temporary relief as prayed for in motion of

appellant’s counsel, such relief is denied.

Respectfully yours,

Robert O. Uehling

Clerk of Supreme Court

I Eg Sa ee, ee ~ PP ARTS SO I OG PRIA A SITE SET Oe Is EIA

sae = 2 Pe,