Julie C. Valadez v. Ricardo Valadez, 2023AP001706

Julie C. Valadez was ordered to pay child support and health insurance premiums following her divorce from Ricardo Valadez.
After failing to make required payments, the State filed to hold Julie in contempt; a contempt hearing was held in her absence, with appointed counsel present.
At the contempt hearing, Julie’s appointed counsel did not object, cross-examine, present evidence, or make arguments on Julie’s behalf.
Julie, represented by new counsel post-hearing, moved to vacate the contempt order, arguing she was denied meaningful representation.
The circuit court denied the postdisposition motion, finding the lack of defense was due to Julie’s lack of cooperation, not counsel's deficiency.
On appeal, neither Ricardo nor the State contested Julie's argument that she was constructively denied counsel, leading the appellate court to deem the argument conceded and reverse the contempt order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Valadez constructively denied the assistance of counsel at the contempt hearing?	Counsel wholly failed to act as an adversary, providing no defense or advocacy at the hearing.	Claimed inability of counsel to defend was due to plaintiff's noncooperation and absence, not counsel's actions.	Argument deemed conceded; court remands for new contempt hearing.
Was Valadez denied the effective assistance of counsel?	Counsel's failure to object, cross-examine, or argue against contempt was constitutionally deficient.	Contended counsel could not defend without plaintiff's cooperation or information.	Court did not rule on merits; based decision on concession of constructive denial.
Should counsel have contested the validity of the underlying child support order?	Counsel could have pressed arguments based on income level and regulatory bars to the insurance contribution.	Counsel believed she was not required to argue these points without formal motion and that her representation was limited.	Not addressed on merits; remand based on constructive denial.
Was the postdisposition motion properly denied by the trial court?	The trial court erred, blaming Valadez for lack of representation; the absence of defense was a denial of rights.	Argued denial stemmed from Valadez's own conduct, not counsel's ineffectiveness.	Appellate court reverses, identifies conceded constructive denial of counsel.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and circumstances under which prejudice is presumed)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (holds that total or constructive denial of counsel constitutes a presumption of prejudice)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (clarifies that Cronic applies only where counsel entirely fails to test the prosecution's case)
State v. Pultz, 206 Wis. 2d 112 (Wis. 1996) (recognizes due process right to appointed counsel in contempt proceedings)