### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 1 9 , 2023

Samuel A. Christensen 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 W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP 2081 Cir. Ct. No. 2020JC 26 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II

I N THE INTEREST OF A.M.M., A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 17:

W AUKESHA C OUNTY ,
P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V . C.M. M.,

R ESPONDENT - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County:
LLOYD CARTER , Judge. Affirmed

.No. 2022AP 2081

2 ¶ 1 GUNDRUM, P. J. 1 C harles 2 appeals pro se from an order of the
circuit court. He asks

[ w ] hether it was procedurally improper as a matter of law for the C riminal D ivision J udge to assume the position as substitute judge to adjudicate over J uvenile D ivision matters involving C hild P lacement C ustody without having had obtained approval either from the assigned J uvenile D ivision J udge or from the C hief J udge in accordance with the prescribed provisions of [ W IS

. S TAT

. §] 801.58(2)

. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Background

¶ 2 In October 2020, Charles’ son Adam 3 , who had already been placed
in out

- of

- home care, was determined by the circuit court to be a child in n eed of protection and services. That dispositional ord er was subsequently extended.

¶ 3 Following a Waukesha C ounty judicial rotation, Judge Laura Lau was assigned to Adam’s case on August 1, 2022. On August 4, 2022, the
Guardian ad Litem (GAL) for Adam filed a request for judicial substitution, citing
W IS

. S TAT

. § § 48.29(1) and 801.58(1), w hich request Judge Lau approved the following day. On August 9, 2022, Charles filed an objection to the substitution , asserting that substitution is not supported by ch

. 48 under the circumstances of
this case. That same day , the order reassigning the ca se to Judge Lloyd Carter was signed, and it was filed on August 10, 2022.

1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2)( e ) (2021

- 22 ). All references to the Wi sconsin Statutes are to the 2021

- 22 version unless otherwise noted.

2 Charles is a pseudonym for C.M.M

.

3 Adam is a pseudonym for A.M.M

.No. 2022AP 2081

3 ¶ 4 On August 31, 2022 , the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services filed a request to revis e the dispositional order related to
Adam so that Charles would have no more visits with him

. Judge Carter held a hearing on the request on October 7, 2022, and thereafter revised the dispositional
order. On October 27, 2022, Charles moved for reconsideration, including requesting that t he case be transferred back to J udge Lau. In a November 11, 2022 written order, Judge Carter denied Ch arles ’ reconsideration motion. Charles appeals.

Discussion

¶ 5 C harles claims the circuit court erred in this case when it allowed “a
C riminal D ivision J udge ... to substitute himself in the place of the assigned Juvenile Division Judge” and adjudicate this juvenile division matter related to child custody and placement. He claims, inter alia, that the substitution of Judge Carter to this case was invalid b ecause Judge Carter was assigned to the criminal, not juvenile, division, and the substitution request was not “ approv [ed]
either [by] the assigned juvenile division judge or from the C hief J udge in accordance with the prescribed provision of [ W IS

. S TAT

. § ] 801.58(2) .” For the following reasons, we see no error, and we affirm.

¶ 6 Charles fails to develop a legal argument as to why Judge Carter, a j udge in the criminal division, could not properly be assigned to preside over this
matter fro m the juvenile division, and we will not abandon our neutrality to try to find and develop a legal argument for him

. See Industrial Risk Insurers v.
Am erican Eng’g Testing, Inc. , 2009 WI App 62, ¶25, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769
N.W.2d 82

. As the appellant, Charles bears the burden of demonstrating how theNo. 2022AP 2081

4 circuit court erred , and he has failed to carry that burden

. See Gaethke v. Pozder , 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 381

. ¶ 7 Furthermore, Charles has fa iled to develop any argument that
convinc es us of an error in the p rocedures employed for substituting J udge Carter in place of Judge Lau on this case. Both W IS

. S TAT

. § § 48.29(1m) and 801.58(2) provide:
When the clerk receives a request for substitution, the clerk

shall immediately contact the judge whose substitution has been requested for a determination of whether the request was made timely and in proper form. If the request is found to be timely and in proper form, the judge named in the request has no further jurisdiction and the clerk shall request the assignment of another judge under [ W IS

. S TAT

. §] 751.03.

Sections 48.29(1m) and 801.58(2) thereafter respectively continue: “ If no determination is made within 7 days, the clerk shall refer the mat ter to the chief judge of the judicial administrative district for determination of whether the request was made timely and in proper form and reassignment as necessary ” and

If the judge named in the substitution request finds that the request was not timely and in proper form, that determination may be reviewed by the chief judge of the judicial administrative district

... if the party who made the substitution request files a written request for review with the clerk no later than 10 days after the dete rmination by the judge named in the request. If no determination is made by the judge named in the request within 7 days, the clerk shall refer the matter to the chief judge

... for determination of whether the request was made timely and in proper form and reassignment as necessary. The newly assigned judge shall proceed under [ W IS

. S TAT

. §] 802.10(1).
Here, the case was assigned to Judge Lau on August 1, 2022 , and the GAL filed the substitution request on August 4, 2022

. Judge Lau timely acted on the req uest ,No. 2022AP 2081

5 approving it on August 5 , 2022 , and Judge Carter was assigned as the new judge in the case on August 9, 2022

. ¶ 8 As both statutes indicate, once Judge Lau approved of the judicial substitution request on August 5, and in doing so imp licitly found the GAL’s request for substitution “to be timely and in proper form,” Judge Lau then had “ no further jurisdiction ” to act in the case, and J udge Carter was then assigned to it

. See W IS

. S TAT

. §§ 48.29(1m), 801.58(2). And as W IS

. S TAT

. § 751 .03 (3) provides, “any circuit judge within the district” may be assigned “to serve in any circuit court within the district.” 4

¶ 9 For the foregoing reasons, we see no error by the circuit court, and
we affirm.

By the Court.

— Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

4 Charles appears to raise numerous mini “ issues ” throughout his briefing, none of which are sufficiently developed. To the extent we do not specifically address an issue , the issue is rejected

. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc. , 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978) (“An appellate court is n ot a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal

. ” ); Clean Wis., Inc. v. PSC , 2005 WI 93, ¶180 n.40, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768 (“We will not address undeveloped arguments.”).