Waukesha County Family Court Judge Ralph Ramirez Facing Petition Of Supervisory Writ After Failing To Vacate Judge Michael J. Aprahamian Erroneous April 9, 2020 Placement And Custody Orders In The Julie Valadez v. Ricardo Valadez Divorce Case

Valadez and her attorney Peter L. Ramirez filed a petition of supervisory writ against Waukesha County family court Judge Ramirez for failing to vacate Judge Aprahamian's erroneous orders of custody and placement of four of the Valadez children.

By H. Nelson Goodson

Hispanic News Network U.S.A.

March 4, 2022

Madison, Wisconsin - On Wednesday, a Memorandum of Law in Support for Supervisory Writ was filed by petitioner Julie Valadez and her attorney Peter L. Ramirez in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District ll claiming that Waukesha County family court Judge Ralph Ramirez in February failed to vacate the April 9, 2020 erroneous custody and placement orders of her children that led for her ex-husband Ricardo Valadez to have full custody after he was deemed a domestic abuser with an alcoholic and drug addiction and claiming that he completed a certified treatment program aimed at combating domestic abuse or saw a certified batterer's treatment provider, which it was later discovered that he didn't comply with state law, but was awarded full custody of the four children while Julie objected.

In December 2021, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District ll found on appeal by Julie that indeed Waukesha County family court Judge Michael J. Aprahamian erred at least five times and reverse and remanded all his illegal acts.

Judge Aprahamian was forced to remove himself from the divorce case after Julie under state law filed for substitution of judge and Judge Ramirez was assigned the case.

Judge Ramirez in February 2022 failed to follow the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision to reverse and remand Judge Aprahamian's erroneous decisions that took away Julie's custody of her four children. Judge Ramirez stayed the illegal custody and placement of her children until March 25, 2022 and was considering a new trial and fact finding hearings, which according to the Supervisory Writ by the petition, state law doesn't allow it.

According to the Supervisory Writ, "The trial court (presiding Judge Ramirez) intends to violate its plain duty to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals by

holding a new trial and taking new evidence prior to reconsideration of the reversed orders...Holding another trial following reversal on appeal will result in extraordinary hardship to Julie and will undermine this Court's appellate authority."

In conclusion, "Petitioner Julie C. Valadez respectfully requests that this Court (WI Vourt of Appeals) issue a supervisory writ ordering the Waukesha County Circuit Court to vacate the April 9, 2020 custody and placement orders and all subsequent orders related to custody and placement and to issue new orders based on the evidence that was presented at trial prior to the April 9, 2020 custody and placement orders, and prohibiting the Waukesha County Circuit Court from proceeding with a new trial or fact-finding hearing in Case No. 2018-FA-296."

"Petitioner has satisfied all of the requirements for granting the requested writ. The circuit court's lack of permission to hold a new trial is plain under Wisconsin Statutes section 808.08 and this Court's mandate in Appeal No. 2020AP1006, and it is clear that the circuit court intends to proceed notwithstanding that limitation. It is self-evident that Petitioner will suffer an extraordinary hardship if the writ is not issued, because she will have to undergo the expense of another trial and yet more delays to justice being done in this case. An appeal is not an adequate remedy because the circuit court's actions undermine this Court's authority and a circuit court's clear duty to comply with a mandate from the court of appeals. Finally, Petitioner has acted promptly and speedily in seeking relief from this Court," the filed petition of Supervisory Writ states.

Update: On March 17, 2022, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals II denied Julie Valadez filing of the Petition of Supervisory Writ for certain reasons. The three appeals judge panel with two denying the supervisory writ and a third writing the descent say, "We deny the writ petition because Valadez has not shown the circuit court’s violation of a plain legal duty. Valadez does not point to any statute or rule establishing the type of non-discretionary duty for which this court has historically granted a supervisory writ. She cites no authority for her proposition that a circuit court cannot take new evidence when reconsidering an earlier discretionary decision that was reversed on appeal under the proper legal standard, especially after the judge presiding over the original hearing has been substituted." (Page 2) 

Judge Shelley A. Crogan in the dissenting opinion wrote, "It is undisputed that Ricardo Valadez engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse. The first circuit court5 made that finding. Despite that finding, the first circuit court gave Ricardo6 sole custody of all four of the Valadez children. In other words, the first circuit court did exactly what the law said it could not do. The first circuit court also failed to make the safety of Julie and the children the paramount concern in determining custody and placement, which the law required it to do. Julie then waited from May 2020 until December 29, 2021 for this court to recognize that her family was subjected to an unlawful judgment—a judgment that WIS. STAT. § 767.41(2)(d)1 says was contrary to the best interest of these children and that likewise did not comply with WIS. STAT. § 767.41(5)(bm)." 

"When this court said that the judgment was unlawful and reversed it—a decision we based on statutes that say the circuit court cannot give custody to the abuser because doing so is contrary to the best interest of the children and that the safety of Julie and the children must be the paramount concern regarding custody and placement under these circumstances—the new circuit court should have vacated that judgment and returned to the custody and placement order that was in place before the unlawful judgment was entered. The majority says our December 2021 decision reversing the judgment was not specific enough for us to now conclude that the new circuit court violated a plain legal duty. The majority says our decision did not specifically direct the new circuit court to vacate the judgment and return to the prior order. I disagree. We reversed the judgment because the first circuit court granted custody and physical placement in clear violation of the law. There is no other option except to vacate that judgment and return the parties to the position they were in before the first circuit court acted unlawfully.7 By failing to do so, the new circuit court keeps in place a judgment that this court said violates the law. It keeps in place a reversed judgment that, according to WIS. STAT. § 767.41(2)(d)1, is contrary to the best interest of the children. It likewise keeps in place a reversed judgment that was entered without making Julie and the children’s safety and well-being the most important factor in determining custody and placement as required by WIS. STAT. § 767.41(5)(bm). 

"Julie suffered injustice when the first circuit court failed to follow the law. She suffers again here not only because of the length of time it took for her June 2020 appeal but also because the new circuit court (and now the majority) determined that our December 2021 decision—reversing a judgment that violated the law—somehow did not sufficiently explain to the new circuit court that it should not allow a judgment that violated the law to remain in effect upon remand. Now, Julie must wait again and hope that the new circuit court properly applies the domestic abuse custody and placement statutes, which exist to protect her and her children. And, if the new circuit court, like the first circuit court, fails to do so, she will likely have to wait at least another year to receive a second appellate decision. (Pages 5 & 6) 

"I would also note that the denial of this writ does not prohibit the circuit court from deciding to vacate the reversed judgment and return the parties to the position they were in before the erroneous custody and placement decision occurred. Doing so would certainly be consistent with our December 2021 decision.8 

"I would grant the writ and order relief and therefore respectfully dissent." (Page 7) 

Footnote: 8 The circuit court’s brief argues that the costs Julie incurred are insufficient to constitute grave hardship. But in addition to the costs Julie never would have incurred had the first circuit court simply followed the law, the grave hardship she suffered goes far beyond any dollar amount. In trying to right the wrong that would not have occurred if the domestic abuse custody and placement statutes had been followed, Julie lost precious time with her four children. This lost time is irreparable. She will never get that time back. And, an appeal after more lost time certainly is not an adequate remedy. As evidenced by the need to file this petition, her first appeal did not provide adequate relief. She won on appeal and still does not have custody months after our December 2021 decision. She is still subject to an unlawful custody and placement judgment. Moreover, by the time this case is resolved in the circuit court and this court hears a potential second appeal, some of her children may be adults. 

(7 page Writ Order decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals II at link: https://bit.ly/3woTVUR)