COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED September 30, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1547
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
In re the Paternity of
KAILYN E.M.:
DANIEL V.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DEBIE M.,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Dane County:
ROBERT DE CHAMBEAU, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, J.,
and Paul C. Gartzke and Robert D. Sundby, Reserve Judges.
PER
CURIAM. Daniel V. appeals from a March 7, 1995 order imposing
a permanent injunction prohibiting him from going upon the grounds of Emerson
Elementary School, Madison, Wisconsin, or from positioning himself so that he
is visible from any point on Emerson's grounds. The order also prohibits contact with various Emerson Elementary
School personnel. Finally, the order
indefinitely suspends physical placement between Daniel V. and his daughter,
Kailyn M. For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
When Kailyn M. began
kindergarten at Emerson Elementary School in fall 1994, her father, Daniel V.,
began to visit her in school. As the
circuit court later found, Daniel V. availed himself of the school's open door
policy to gain additional visitation with Kailyn M. He visited often, "hovering" over her in class,
interacting with her on the playground, and eventually coming into conflict
with Kailyn M.'s teacher and the school principal. Daniel V.'s behavior resulted in a September 30, 1994 arrest on
school grounds, and a January 27, 1995 police order to leave the school
grounds. Kailyn M. reacted to Daniel
V.'s presence by crying, hiding from him, and pulling at her face and hair.
On January 12, 1995,
Daniel V. brought an order to show cause, alleging that he was being wrongfully
denied visitation with Kailyn M. On
January 31, Kailyn M.'s guardian ad litem brought an order to show cause,
alleging that Daniel V. was disrupting Kailyn M. at school, and requesting a
temporary injunction. The court
considered both orders at a February 14, 1995 hearing and issued the April 7,
1995 injunction against Daniel V., which is here appealed.
ANALYSIS
Daniel V. claims the
circuit court order violates his constitutional rights of liberty and pursuit
of happiness because it undermines his parental rights. He also claims the order violates his right
to petition government because it prohibits him from contacting school personnel,
and from being within viewing distance of Emerson Elementary School. However, Daniel V. fails to substantiate his
arguments with citations to the record or to law.[1]
It is not the job of the
court of appeals to supply argument and legal research to an appellant who
raises unsupported claims. Cf. State
v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc., 81 Wis.2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d
147, 151 (1978) ("[a]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required
to dance to each and every tune played on appeal"). In addition, we will generally not consider
arguments unsupported by legal authority.
State v. Shaffer, 96 Wis.2d 531, 545-46, 292 N.W.2d 370,
378 (Ct. App. 1980). Finally, an
appellate argument unsupported by proper cites to the record does not comply
with § 809.19(1)(e), Stats.,
and this court will refuse to consider it, or will summarily affirm on this
issue. Rule 809.83(2), Stats;
Shaffer, 96 Wis.2d at 546, 292 N.W.2d at 378.
In addition, Daniel V.
has failed to supply this court with a transcript. He attempted to obtain a free transcript under Girouard v.
Circuit Court for Jackson County, 155 Wis.2d 148, 157, 454 N.W.2d 792,
796 (1990). However, the circuit court
held that he failed to prove indigency and that his appeal had no merit. Daniel V. has not appealed the circuit
court's Girouard determination, and it is therefore not at
issue. Where there is no transcript,
the court will assume that every fact essential to the trial court decision is
supported by the record. Austin
v. Ford Motor Co., 86 Wis.2d 628, 641, 273 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1979).
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.