Nicole Waupoose supported transferring her son’s attempted homicide case even as prosecutors described her as the victim of the alleged attack.
GREEN BAY, Wis. — Nicole Waupoose stood before a Wisconsin judge as both a mother and the alleged victim in a serious criminal case, asking that her teenage son be placed in juvenile court because she believed that system offered him the best chance for treatment.
Judge Beau Liegeois ultimately declined her request. Ramone Waupoose, now 17, will remain in adult criminal court on charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon. The decision followed a reverse-waiver hearing that focused on how long Waupoose may need treatment, what services would be available in juvenile facilities and whether moving the case would adequately reflect the seriousness of the allegations. Waupoose’s mother told the court she believed juvenile treatment was best for him. Prosecutors argued that the adult system also has treatment options, and Liegeois concluded the juvenile system’s available treatment period was insufficient.
Her position added a complicated family dimension to a hearing otherwise governed by specific legal standards. Nicole Waupoose is the person whom authorities say was injured during the July 16, 2025, incident at the family’s Suamico home. Yet when the court considered where her son should be prosecuted, she did not urge the harshest available venue. Instead, she supported the defense effort to move the case into the juvenile system. “I feel my son will get the best treatment in juvenile court,” she told the court, according to local reporting. The judge was required to weigh that view with expert testimony, the prosecution’s arguments and Wisconsin law governing juveniles whose cases begin under adult criminal jurisdiction.
Psychologist Greg Van Rybroek supplied the central treatment argument for the defense. He testified that the structure and services available in juvenile facilities would better serve Waupoose than those available in adult prison and said treatment there could lower the risk of future offending. Van Rybroek also said he did not believe a transfer to juvenile court would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the alleged crime. That point matters because Wisconsin’s reverse-waiver process requires more than a showing that a juvenile program might be helpful. A youth seeking transfer must satisfy statutory criteria that address adequate treatment, the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. Adult court remains the default unless those requirements are met.
Assistant District Attorney Kim Hardtke argued that the presumption favoring adult jurisdiction had not been overcome. She told the court that treatment options exist in the adult criminal justice system as well. Liegeois focused on the length of treatment available in the juvenile system, saying the roughly five-year period discussed at the hearing would be inadequate given both Waupoose’s needs and the seriousness of the charges. Van Rybroek’s own testimony indicated that Waupoose could need treatment beyond that period. The judge’s conclusion turned that evidence against the transfer request: Even accepting the importance of specialized services, the court found the juvenile system could not provide a sufficient treatment horizon under the facts presented.
The allegations underlying that debate began with concerns inside the Waupoose home more than a year earlier. According to the criminal complaint, Nicole Waupoose told investigators that her son had run away and had been returned home by authorities two days before the alleged attack. She said he was angry about being brought back. She also told police he was upset that she had deleted rap videos from his YouTube account while trying to manage parental controls. The complaint does not establish those matters as proven motives; they are statements attributed to her during the investigation. Prosecutors allege the anger was part of a broader sequence of increasingly concerning behavior before the confrontation.
Nicole Waupoose told investigators that she began taking precautions because she feared her son might hurt himself. She gathered knives, sharp kitchen utensils and tools and locked them in her vehicle, according to the complaint. She said she monitored the house through cameras and saw Ramone searching around the garage near a toolbox and a mattress. She later believed that was where he located a large pair of pruning shears. Her statement described his behavior as becoming increasingly unsettling, but she said her primary fear at that point was for his own safety rather than that he would attack family members. That distinction became significant only after the events authorities say followed.
The complaint says the electricity in the house began turning on and off before Nicole Waupoose went toward the home’s power box. Authorities allege that Ramone was there and attacked her with the pruning shears. She told investigators that she used a garbage can to shield herself before getting away. She then escaped the house with her younger son and drove off while seeking help. Authorities said she sustained injuries to her head, face, arms and back. Earlier reports citing the complaint said medical workers used staples and stitches to treat her injuries. Investigators reported locating pruning shears about 2 feet long at the scene and observing blood nearby.
The case also rests in part on digital evidence that investigators say they recovered after the confrontation. According to the criminal complaint, messages on Waupoose’s phone contained threats directed at his mother, his younger brother and an ex-girlfriend. Some messages allegedly referred to killing family members and recording an attack. Prosecutors have pointed to those communications in describing the evidence supporting their charges. The allegations contained in those messages have not been tested at trial, and their legal significance will be determined through the criminal process. Waupoose has not been convicted of either charge and is presumed innocent unless the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Long before the reverse-waiver hearing, another treatment-related question had already delayed the prosecution. Defense counsel raised concerns about Waupoose’s competency shortly after charges were filed in August 2025. An examiner found him not competent to proceed, and the court later ordered an updated evaluation because an earlier report had been prepared with the juvenile system in mind while the case was proceeding under adult jurisdiction. Competency does not ask whether someone committed a crime. It asks whether a defendant can understand the proceedings and meaningfully assist counsel. The case was paused while Waupoose received treatment. By March 2026, he was found competent and the prosecution resumed.
The defense then shifted from whether Waupoose could proceed to where he should proceed. After a preliminary hearing, the court ordered him to stand trial, and his lawyers formally pursued reverse waiver. His May 2 birthday complicated that effort because he turned 17 while the matter was pending. Wisconsin generally prosecutes 17-year-olds as adults. Liegeois nevertheless allowed the reverse-waiver proceedings to continue, recognizing that Waupoose had been 16 at the time of the alleged offense and that some juvenile services might still have been available. That ruling gave his attorneys an opportunity to present the treatment case that his mother ultimately supported in court.
The final decision illustrates the difference between a finding that treatment may be beneficial and the legal conclusion that a criminal case must be transferred. Liegeois did not reject the premise that Waupoose has treatment needs or that juvenile facilities offer services that could benefit him. He concluded that those services, available for a limited period, were inadequate for the circumstances before the court. That left the prosecution where it began: in adult criminal court. The ruling did not decide the truth of the accusations, impose a sentence or resolve the charges. It determined the forum in which those questions will continue to be litigated.
Published reports after the ruling listed an Oct. 27 status conference as the next scheduled proceeding. The sources reviewed through Nov. 6 did not establish a later verdict or final disposition. For now, the case remains defined by the contrast heard at the reverse-waiver proceeding: a mother asking that the son accused of attacking her receive juvenile treatment, and a judge concluding that the adult system must retain jurisdiction because the juvenile option did not satisfy the legal standard.
Author note: Last updated Nov. 6, 2026.