COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

August 12, 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2019AP1524 Cir. Ct. No. 2001PA111PJ

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

IN RE THE FINDING OF CONTEMPT IN:

IN RE THE PATERNITY OF R.L.A. AND B.L.A.:

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

SUZANNE HEFFNER,

 PETITIONER,

 V.

RICHARD L. AUSTIN, JR.,

 RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Washington County: 

TODD K. MARTENS, Judge. Affirmed. 
No. 2019AP1524

2

¶1 NEUBAUER, C.J.1 Richard L. Austin, Jr., appeals from an order 

finding him in contempt for lack of child support, sentencing him to forty-five 

days in jail. Austin asserts that the Washington County Child Support Agency 

lacked jurisdiction to enforce child support laws. He also asserts that the circuit 

court failed to protect his right to due process and suggests that sufficient evidence 

did not support the contempt order. Austin’s arguments are largely based on 

irrelevant federal law.2 We conclude the circuit court had jurisdiction to enforce 

child support laws, Austin has failed to identify any due process issue, and there 

was sufficient support for the court’s finding of contempt. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On December 7, 2018, the State requested an order requiring Austin 

to seek employment, supporting its request with documentation reflecting a long 

period of nonpayment of child support. After a hearing at which Austin and the 

State appeared, a court commissioner granted the request, ordering Austin to 

actively seek work any time he was unable to produce a full payment.

¶3 After another hearing on February 15, 2019, the court commissioner 

found that Austin had failed to comply with the December order.

¶4 At a hearing held before the circuit court on July 24, 2019, the court

found that Austin had still not complied with the December 7 order, both failing to 

explain his noncompliance and failing to pay. The court found Austin “was able 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(h) (2017-18). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version.

2

 Though Austin’s entire brief quotes irrelevant federal law, applicable state law governs 

this case.
No. 2019AP1524

3

or should have been able to pay or comply with the Court’s order and his failure to 

comply was willful.” The court found him in contempt.

¶5 The court ordered Austin to serve forty-five days in jail with Huber 

privileges, but stayed the sentence for eighteen months, allowing Austin a chance

to comply with certain conditions. The court also ordered Austin to make $100 

monthly payments via an income withholding order, commencing August 1, 2019, 

toward his child support and then to any other debts due in the case. Ultimately, 

the contempt action was concluded after a purge was paid by Austin in the amount 

of $2678.50. 

DISCUSSION

¶6 Under WIS. STAT. § 785.01(1)(b), “[c]ontempt of court means 

intentional ... [d]isobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or 

order of a court.” Whether conduct constitutes contempt is a decision committed 

to the circuit court’s discretion. Currie v. Schwalbach, 132 Wis. 2d 29, 36, 390 

N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1986), aff’d, 139 Wis. 2d 544, 407 N.W.2d 862 (1987). A 

contempt determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear mistake or 

misuse of discretion. Kaminsky v. Milwaukee Acceptance Corp., 39 Wis. 2d 741, 

746, 159 N.W.2d 643 (1968). 

¶7 “The circuit courts have jurisdiction of all actions affecting the 

family and have authority to do all acts and things necessary and proper in those 

actions and to carry their orders and judgments into execution ....” WIS. STAT.

§ 767.01(1). Section 767.01(2) specifically covers paternity and child support, 

stating, “In an action to establish paternity or to establish or enforce a child 

support obligation, in regard to a child who is the subject of the action, a person

is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as provided in
No. 2019AP1524

4

[WIS. STAT. §§] 769.201 or 801.05.” Section 801.05 states that a court that has 

subject-matter jurisdiction also has personal jurisdiction over the person served

under certain circumstances, including over a person who is domiciled within the 

state. Sec. 801.05(1)(b).

¶8 The statutes are clear. When applied to these facts, they show that 

the circuit court had jurisdiction over Austin. Austin acknowledges that he “is a 

man domiciled in the State of Wisconsin.”3 Austin does not present any relevant 

contrary argument either in his moving brief or in reply.

4

¶9 Likewise, Austin has failed to identify any due process violations in 

this case, or identify any aspect in which the State did not abide by the applicable 

statutes or due process requirements. WISCONSIN STAT. § 767.78(2) provides that 

the State may bring enforcement actions, including contempt, against a person 

who has not complied with their financial obligations. 

¶10 WISCONSIN STAT. § 767.201 provides that WIS. STAT. ch. 801 of the 

Wisconsin Statutes governs procedure and practice in an action involving the 

family. The State contends that it followed all due process procedural 

requirements in this case, pointing to proper personal service, notice of all 

hearings, an opportunity to be heard, and appropriate allegations in support of a 

 

3

 Even if Austin were not domiciled in the state, WIS. STAT. § 769.201(1m) lists ways in 

which the circuit court may obtain jurisdiction over a person, including the following: if the 

individual resided in the state with the child, if the individual resided in the state and provided 

prenatal expenses or support for the child, or if the child was conceived in the state.

4

 In his appellate briefing, Austin fails to reply to the State’s arguments, effectively

conceding them. See Park 6 LLC v. City of Racine, 2012 WI App 123, ¶4 n.3, 344 Wis. 2d 661, 

824 N.W.2d 903 (“The due process issue has thus been conceded, and we do not address it.”).
No. 2019AP1524

5

finding of contempt. Austin has failed to address any of these issues or otherwise 

respond.

¶11 Finally, the State properly proved its case, submitting sufficient 

evidence for the court to make a finding of contempt. Case law outlines that the 

two elements of contempt are (1) a payer’s failure to pay is willful and (2) the 

failure to pay is not the result of inability to pay. O’Connor v. O’Connor, 48 

Wis. 2d 535, 542-543, 180 N.W.2d 735 (1970). The burden is on the contemnor 

to show the conduct was not contemptuous. Balaam v. Balaam, 52 Wis. 2d 20, 

30, 187 N.W.2d 867 (1971). 

¶12 On December 7, 2018, Austin was ordered to seek work actively and 

diligently. On February 15, 2019, Austin was found noncompliant. Austin was 

personally served on April 23, 2019, with an Order to Show Cause Contempt and 

an affidavit in support of a finding of contempt.

¶13 The contempt hearing was held on July 24, 2019, having allowed 

Austin three months to marshal his evidence and arguments as to why he was not 

in contempt. The State offered proof of contempt by presenting the KIDS account 

statement, which reflected a significant period of nonpayment by Austin. The 

court found that Austin “was able or should have been able to pay or comply with 

the Court’s order and his failure to comply was willful.” Austin was found in 

contempt because he failed to make court-ordered payments and because he failed

to comply with the seek work order.
No. 2019AP1524

6

¶14 In his brief, Austin argues the State failed to present any evidence to 

support the finding of contempt, but provides nothing to support his contention. 

His argument is wholly without merit.5 We affirm.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

 

5

 Austin’s pro se arguments are generally amorphous, disorganized, and without legal 

and/or factual support. See State v. Culver, 2018 WI App 55, ¶¶25 n.14 & 27 n.15, 384 Wis. 2d 

222, 918 N.W. 2d 103 (we do not address undeveloped arguments).

To the extent we are able to shape the line of argument he advanced regarding the 

interplay of federal law, we briefly address it. He identifies federal law, which as we see it is not 

to his benefit. It is true that Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act (codified at 42 U.S.C.

§§ 651-669b (1987)) establishes a federal-state scheme for the establishment and enforcement of 

child support. See generally Schulz v. Ystad, 155 Wis. 2d 574, 594 n.2, 456 N.W.2d 312 (1990). 

However, Austin fails to explain how this is applicable to his child support obligations under state 

law.