Alexander T. Hawkins v. Angela M. Wendling

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 19, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2023AP1835 Cir. Ct. No. 2018FA264

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ALEXANDER T. HAWKINS,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

ANGELA M. WENDLING,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:
DANIEL J. BISSETT, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Neubauer, P.J., Gundrum, and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2023AP1835

¶1 PER CURIAM. Angela M. Wendling appeals the circuit court’s
order denying her motion to modify the parties’ agreement, as set forth in their
Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), regarding custody and physical placement
of their children.

¶2 Alexander T. Hawkins and Wendling were married in 2012 and had
two children. The couple divorced in 2019, upon which they entered into the
MSA, in which they stipulated to joint legal custody and shared physical
placement of their children.

¶3 On December 3, 2021, Wendling filed a request seeking several
accommodations during court hearings under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., many of which the circuit court granted on
December 14, 2021.

¶4 This appeal originates from a March 21, 2023 hearing de novo,
which the circuit court scheduled in response to Wendling’s pro se motion filed on
November 21, 2022, seeking revisions to the custody and physical placement
agreement such that she be granted “temporary sole legal custody” for mental
health treatment for the children and overnight Monday visits, which the family
court commissioner denied on February 7, 2023. On March 1, 2023, Wendling
filed a request for a hearing de novo. On March 17, 2023, Wendling requested the
court reschedule the hearing de novo scheduled for March 21, 2023, because she
had found an attorney willing to represent her but who was unavailable on that
date. At the March 21, 2023 hearing, Wendling appeared without her attorney.
She asked the court to adjourn until a later date, but the court declined because
“respondent certainly has had sufficient opportunity to retain counsel” and stated
that the court suffered from a backlog of cases due to back-to-back criminal trials.

2
No. 2023AP1835

The court noted that “[Wendling] was the one [who] filed the original action … in
November of 2022. So, it’s been months that the opportunity for counsel … has
been available to [Wendling].” The hearing ensued, and Wendling called
witnesses, including a psychologist as an expert witness, whom she questioned,
and she herself testified. She also cross-examined Hawkins and made a closing
argument. Wendling requested to bring her prepared notes to the stand during her
testimony, and the court prohibited her from doing so, stating that it had to
“respect the rules of evidence,” but said she could use them, if needed, to refresh
her recollection.

¶5 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court noted that “the
parties did enter into a pretty comprehensive [MSA]” where “[b]oth parties were
represented by counsel [and t]here was a guardian ad litem … who also approved
[the MSA]” and which was approved by the court. Citing WIS. STAT. §§ 767.41
and 767.451 (2023-24),1 the statutes governing custody and physical placement of
children and providing for revisions to such orders, the court noted that they do
not provide for “temporary sole legal custody” as an option. It stated that it was
unaware of case law that allows for such a revision. Thus, it denied Wendling’s
motion to grant her temporary sole legal custody.

¶6 Wendling makes the following claims: (1) the circuit court erred in
denying her request that the hearing de novo be rescheduled; (2) the court erred in
prohibiting Wendling from using prepared notes during her testimony; (3) the
court erred in denying her motion for temporary sole legal custody of her children;

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

3
No. 2023AP1835

and (4) the court erred in denying her request for conversion of Monday night
visits to overnight placement.

¶7 A circuit court’s discretionary decisions regarding its scheduling
decisions are reviewed under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Estate
of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2011 WI App 101, ¶5, 335 Wis. 2d
151, 801 N.W.2d 781, aff’d, 2012 WI 70, ¶82, 342 Wis. 2d 29, 816 N.W.2d 853.
“We will sustain a discretionary determination if the circuit court examined the
relevant facts; applied a proper standard of law; and using a demonstrative rational
process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.” Kriefall, 335
Wis. 2d 151, ¶5 (citation omitted).

¶8 The circuit court did not err when it declined to reschedule the
March 21, 2023 hearing de novo, because it examined the relevant facts, cited law,
and used a rational process to come to its conclusion. In denying Wendling’s
request to reschedule the hearing, the court evaluated its ability to reschedule
based on its calendar. It noted that it had back-to-back criminal trials that caused a
backlog of cases, which meant there was no room to reschedule the hearing. It
noted that the Wisconsin legislature imposed a 60-day time frame during which
hearings de novo must occur.2 It noted that the underlying reason for the hearing
was Wendling’s November 2022 motion and that she had many months to retain
an attorney who could represent her at the scheduled hearing.

2
“The court shall hold a hearing de novo no later than 60 days from the date of the filing
of the motion under this section ….” WIS. STAT. § 767.17(3). Wendling’s reliance on Jahimiak
v. Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5, ¶2, 410 Wis. 2d 557, 2 N.W.3d 756, to argue that the circuit court
could have scheduled the hearing de novo beyond the 60-day guideline is misplaced because the
issue there was whether the court retained competency to hold the hearing de novo even after 60
days had passed since the filing of the motion requesting the hearing. Id., ¶2.

4
No. 2023AP1835

¶9 Likewise, a circuit court’s discretionary decisions on rulings on
evidence are reviewed under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard.
Weborg v. Jenny, 2012 WI 67, ¶41, 341 Wis. 2d 668, 816 N.W.2d 191. “A circuit
court erroneously exercises its discretion if it applies an improper legal standard or
makes a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record.” Id. (citation
omitted).

¶10 The circuit court did not err in prohibiting Wendling from bringing
her prepared notes to the stand during her testimony at the hearing de novo. Under
state statute, Wendling’s prepared notes constitute hearsay, a statement other than
that made during testimony offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted. See WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3). Hearsay is inadmissible in court except as
otherwise provided by state law. WIS. STAT. § 908.02. The court did make an
allowance for Wendling to use her prepared notes to refresh her recollection, an
exception to the prohibition against hearsay, see WIS. STAT. § 908.03(5), although
this circumstance did not come to pass during Wendling’s testimony. Thus, the
court applied applicable state law supported by the facts to reach its reasonable
decision that Wendling could not bring her prepared notes to the stand during her
testimony but could request to use them to refresh her recollection.

¶11 In support of her claims that the circuit court erred in failing to
reschedule the hearing de novo and prohibiting her from bringing her prepared
notes to the stand during her testimony, Wendling argues that the court violated
her rights under the ADA,3 which states, “no qualified individual with a disability

3
Wendling also makes undeveloped claims of First Amendment and due process
violations that are supported only by general statements. “We may decline to review issues
inadequately briefed.” State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

5
No. 2023AP1835

shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. “State courts
are bound by the Federal [ADA].” Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, ¶15, 316
Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219. Title II of the ADA provides an “affirmative
obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of
justice” to protect the qualified individual’s “fundamental right of access to the
courts[.]” Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34 (2004). Notably, this
obligation does not require that a state “employ any and all means to make judicial
services accessible to persons with disabilities” but rather “requires only
‘reasonable modifications’ that would not fundamentally alter the nature of the
service provided[.]” Id. at 531-32 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2)).

¶12 With respect to her request to reschedule the hearing, Wendling’s
argument under the ADA fails because the circuit court ensured that she had
meaningful access to the court’s activities at the March 21, 2023 hearing de novo.
The court granted many of her accommodation requests on December 14, 2021,
which remained in effect on March 21, 2023. For example, in granting
accommodations, the court wrote that “[e]very effort will be made to schedule
hearings in half day segments unless the administration of justice would require
otherwise” and “[b]reaks will be granted as requested provided they do not
unreasonabl[y] interfere with the flow of testimony before the court.” As such, the
March 21, 2023 hearing de novo was scheduled for a half-day, and the court
allowed her a break when she requested one. Wendling had meaningful access to
the court: she attended the hearing, called witnesses and questioned them,
presented her own testimony, cross-examined Hawkins, and delivered a closing
argument. Her request for rescheduling the hearing was related to her desire to

6
No. 2023AP1835

have her recently acquired attorney present, and she fails to explain how she was
discriminated against under the ADA by the court’s failure to accommodate her
attorney’s schedule. Thus, we conclude that the court did not err in exercising its
discretion to deny Wendling’s request to reschedule the hearing.

¶13 With respect to her request to bring her prepared notes to the stand
during her testimony, Wendling’s ADA argument likewise fails, as the circuit
court was not bound to ignore the rules of evidence to make an accommodation for
Wendling.4 “[A]n accommodation is unreasonable if it imposes significant
financial or administrative costs, or it fundamentally alters the nature of the
program or service.” A.H. by Holzmueller v. Illinois High Sch. Ass’n, 881 F.3d
587, 594 (7th Cir. 2018). Requiring the court to ignore the rules of evidence as an
accommodation would be unreasonable because it would fundamentally alter the
nature of the court’s activities, which require the court to abide by the rules of
evidence. Wendling had meaningful access to the court: she was able to testify
without reading from her notes, and notably, she did not invoke the need to use
them to refresh her recollection.

¶14 Moving onto the substantive matters underlying Wendling’s motion
heard at the March 21, 2023 hearing de novo, the circuit court did not err in
denying her motion for temporary sole legal custody. “We review modification of
a placement order to determine if the decision reflects a reasonable exercise of
discretion.” Glidewell v. Glidewell, 2015 WI App 64, ¶22, 364 Wis. 2d 588, 869
N.W.2d 796. A court’s discretionary acts are reasonable if it examines relevant

4
Wendling also makes an undeveloped claim that her prepared notes were “akin to
attorney work product,” which we decline to review. See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646.

7
No. 2023AP1835

facts, applies the proper standard of law, and reaches a reasonable conclusion
using a demonstrated rational process. Id. Notwithstanding Wendling’s assertion
to the contrary, the court applied the correct legal standard in denying her motion
for temporary sole legal custody. The court relied on the statutes governing legal
custody, physical placement, and revisions to these statutes, WIS. STAT. §§ 767.41
and 767.451, noting that it was not aware of any governing case law on this issue.
It identified that the statutes do not provide for “temporary sole legal custody.” It
reasoned that there was no factual basis for the request for temporary sole legal
custody for the purpose of mental health treatment for the children, as well. The
court noted that while a psychologist testified that many children would benefit
from mental health counseling, the psychologist had not met with Wendling and
Hawkins’ children and had not reviewed materials specific to their cases. Having
established that the children have a pediatrician, the court reasoned that the
children’s physician could make appropriate referrals, but it would not order
mental health treatment for the children. We conclude the court exercised its
reasonable discretion in deciding against Wendling’s motion for temporary sole
legal custody.

¶15 Finally, the circuit court did not err in denying Wendling’s request
for conversion of Monday night visits to overnight placement. The March 21,
2023 hearing de novo does not substantively broach this matter.5 Wendling did
not elicit facts during the hearing in support of her request, and she made no legal

5
Wendling makes brief mention of it during her testimony, and the court also makes
brief mention that Wendling had requested in her motion an order to grant Monday visits be
converted to overnight placement.

8
No. 2023AP1835

arguments.6 “When a party does not raise an issue in the trial court, the party loses
the right to raise that issue on appeal.” Cashin v. Cashin, 2004 WI App 92, ¶26,
273 Wis. 2d 754, 681 N.W.2d 255. Thus, we decline to review this issue.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

6
The circuit court did not provide an explanation for its denial of this request during its
oral decision at the conclusion of the March 21, 2023 hearing de novo, nor did it provide one in
its written order from that hearing, where it issued a blanket denial of Wendling’s motion.

9