I need some feed back on a pro se appeal I filed

V. ARGUMENT

United States Constitution, Amendment 14

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Judge Erik J. Wahl violated my 14th amendment rights when he refused to give me my day in court to defend myself against horrendous accusations used in reports from the Department of Human Services. The guardian ad litem relied greatly on these reports without verifying their accuracy. Judge Wahl in tern relied solely on the recommendations of the guardian ad litem. In so doing, he violated my constitutional rights. As a result, primary placement of my daughter was taken from me with no substantial change in circumstances or proof of these accusations.

My counsel and I were prepared to prove these accusations to be false. We had expert testimony from two of my daughter’s medical doctors, namely Dr. David Van de Loo, a pediatrician from Midelfort Clinic and Dr. Larry Studt from Marshfield Clinic. We also had the psychological evaluation from the psychologist ordered by the court for both Michael and myself.

Judge Wahl stated in the transcript from the hearing in chamber dated December 10, 2004 on page 2, line 25 through page 3, line 9:

Ms. Smith said she would believe that Kathleen would want her day in court and I told her that as far as I was concerned I doubt that anything could come out during testimony that would persuade me to change Ms. Julsrud’s recommendation.

I pointed out Ms. Julsrud is a long experienced Guardian ad Litem. I have great faith in her work. And as far as I know I’ve never overturned anything that she, where she has made a recommendation.

On page 3, lines 22 through line 24, Judge Wahl further stated, “But I do ackowledge that to a great extent I did not give Kathleen her day in court, that I shortstopped this whole thing.

Kathleen attorney at this time, Julie Smith, stated on page 4 lines 12 through 20 of the transcript:

Ms. Smith: Just for the record, my client’s last name is Degre-Gunderson. And we did file a Motion to Dismiss based on the grounds listed in the motion, namely, that there’s been no substantial change in circumstances. In addition, I believe we are in court today based on an order to show cause not a motion for change of placement and one of the reliefs sought through the order to show cause was a change of placement.

These actions by the court have resulted in change of placement of the minor child even though the criteria were not met according to of Wisconsin statute 767.325 Revision so legal custody and physical placement orders.

(1)(b) After 2-year-period.
1. Except as provided under par. (a) and sub. (2), upon petition, motion or order to show cause by a party, a court may modify an order of legal custody or an order of physical placement where the modification would substantially alter the time a parent may spend with his or her child if the court finds all of the following:

a. The modification is in the best interest of the child.
b. There has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the last order affecting legal custody or the last order substantially affecting physical placement.
2. With respect to subd.1., there is a rebuttable presumption that :

a. Continuing the current allocation of decision-making under a legal custody order is in the best interest of the child.
b. Continuing the child’s physical placement with the parent with whom the child resides for the greater period of time is in the best interest of the child.
3. A change in the economic circumstances or marital status of either part is not sufficient to meet the standard for modification under subd. 1.

The orders drafter by Michael O’Connel’s attorney, Ann Brown, in no way reflected what was discussed in chambers. Ms. Smith, Kathllen’s attorney, filed an objection asking the court not to sing these orders as written. This objection was ignored by the court and orders were signed by Judge Wahl on February 11, 2005. (Index #: 43 (1-4).

VI: CONCLUSION

Respondent-Petitioner is asking the court of appeals to conduct a de novo review of all contested issues based on the record in this case as of August 7, 2003. Whatever the results of this de novo review, petitioner believes that it would be far more just than allowing the guardian ad litem (Ann Julsrud) and respondents, attorney (Ann Brown), to decide this case.