Background
Cassi Kruger sought a harassment injunction under Wis. Stat. § 813.125 against Cynthia Weber, her former mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother of her children. Beginning in May 2023, Kruger testified that Weber began appearing at her children’s baseball practices and games — venues Weber had rarely attended before — and repeatedly pointed her phone at Kruger and her husband in a manner Kruger believed constituted unconsented recording. Over two baseball seasons and at wrestling meets in 2024 and 2025, Weber allegedly followed Kruger around the venues, entered opposing team dugouts to film Kruger while she coached, and continued the conduct after Kruger repeatedly asked her to stop. Weber responded to those requests by calling Kruger a liar.
Kruger also testified about Weber’s online conduct: despite being blocked on several social media platforms, Weber allegedly accessed Kruger’s accounts through other accounts and, as reported by Kruger’s eleven-year-old son, maintained a physical stack of printed photographs of Kruger and her husband at her home. The situation escalated at a state wrestling tournament in March 2025, when Weber took over Kruger’s seats during an intermission and then followed Kruger to a new location, screaming her name, chasing her, shoving Kruger’s father, and yelling at Kruger’s mother.
At the circuit court hearing in Marquette County, Weber denied intentionally filming Kruger (other than one photo taken for use in her son’s divorce proceeding) and maintained that she attended events solely to support her grandchildren. The circuit court found Kruger more credible, concluded that Weber’s conduct constituted harassment with intent to harass or intimidate serving no legitimate purpose, and entered a four-year injunction barring Weber from contacting Kruger or appearing at any premises temporarily occupied by her, including the children’s sporting events. Weber appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in a per curiam decision. Applying a mixed standard of review — deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous while independently reviewing the legal sufficiency of the harassment finding — the court rejected each of Weber’s arguments. On the intent element, the appellate court held that the circuit court expressly found reasonable grounds to believe Weber acted with intent to harass or intimidate Kruger, and that finding was supported by the record. The court emphasized that intent need not be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from conduct and circumstances; a person who continues behavior after being told to stop is on notice that the conduct is practically certain to cause the target to feel harassed or intimidated.
The court also rejected Weber’s argument that her conduct served the legitimate familial purpose of attending grandchildren’s events and taking family photos. The circuit court’s credibility findings supported the conclusion that Weber’s behavior diverged materially from ordinary grandparent conduct — she entered opposing dugouts to film Kruger when the grandchildren were elsewhere, recorded Kruger at wrestling meets when the children were not present, and persisted after explicit objections. The appellate court further dismissed Weber’s contention that the circuit court improperly relied on Kruger’s “emotional testimony,” noting that witness testimony is evidence, that weighing its accuracy was the circuit court’s province, and that Kruger’s reported feelings of fear and intimidation were directly relevant to elements of the harassment statute.
Key Takeaways
- Under Wis. Stat. § 813.125, harassment injunctions require proof of a course of conduct that harasses or intimidates and serves no legitimate purpose, plus intent to harass — but intent need not rise to the level of intending physical harm or stalking; knowledge that conduct is practically certain to cause intimidation is sufficient.
- Circuit court credibility determinations are entitled to strong deference on appeal; where the trial court credits the petitioner’s testimony over the respondent’s, that finding will stand unless clearly erroneous.
- A claimed “legitimate purpose” (here, attending grandchildren’s events) will not defeat a harassment injunction where the court finds that specific conduct exceeded that purpose — such as filming a person in locations and at times unconnected to observing the children.
- A petitioner’s subjective testimony about fear and intimidation is admissible, competent evidence that goes directly to elements of Wisconsin’s harassment statute, and may properly be credited by the factfinder.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Wisconsin courts evaluate harassment injunctions in the context of extended-family disputes arising at children’s events — a fact pattern increasingly common after divorce or family estrangement. The opinion makes clear that a respondent cannot insulate persistent, unwanted surveillance-like conduct from judicial remedy simply by framing it as participation in family life. Courts will look past the stated purpose to examine whether the specific behavior, viewed as a whole, objectively harassed the petitioner and exceeded any legitimate aim.
The case also reinforces the breadth of judicial discretion in credibility-heavy harassment proceedings. Because the opinion is unpublished and designated non-precedential under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5., it cannot be cited as authority in Wisconsin courts, but it offers practitioners a clear illustration of how appellate courts analyze mixed questions of intent, credibility, and legitimate purpose under § 813.125.