Rufus King High School teacher pleads guilty to sexual misconduct charge
Erica Allemang-Reinke, 40, will face 24 months of probation for one felony count of sexual misconduct by a school staff member and one misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct. Allemang-Reinke also forfeited her teaching license as part of the plea deal.
At a July 15 hearing in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, two of the four students who had accused the teacher of misconduct — and two of their parents — testified to the impact the teacher's conduct had on their mental health and educational careers.
"The amount of damage Erica has done in my family and to my child, is unmeasurable," Rufus King parent Raylena Windmon said at the hearing.
Allemang-Reinke has been a teacher since 2008, and employed at Rufus King since the 2013-14 school year, according to her attorney, Craig Mastantuono. She apologized for her actions during the hearing.
"I am so sorry to parents and students that I've hurt," Allemang-Reinke said. "I have been seeking therapy due to this incident, and I've come to the realization that I've had an issue with boundaries. It just has never come into fruition until my 17th year of teaching, due to the fact that I felt more students seem to have more social needs this past year."
"It was not my job to fulfill those social needs."
On April 21, Allemang-Reinke was charged with four felony counts of sexual misconduct by a school staff member or volunteer. According to the criminal complaint filed in the case, students on the basketball team at Rufus King High School told a school resource officer on April 15 that Allemang-Reinke had been inappropriately contacting them throughout the 2024-25 school year.
The north side magnet school's principle communicated to parents on April 16 that a teacher was not working while an investigation was conducted, but did not name Allemang-Reinke. According to the teacher's attorney, Allemang-Reinke found out about the charges filed against her from the news, and she turned herself in to police.
According to the complaint, students alleged Allemang-Reinke asked for them to share their phone numbers and locations with her. They claim she sent them cash or gifts, made inappropriate comments and — in one case — touched a student inappropriately. One student also said that Allemang-Reinke offered to perform a sex act with them, which the student declined.
When the charges were filed, the four student victims were all between the ages of 16 and 18.
As part of a plea deal, Allemang-Reinke pled guilty to the first sexual misconduct charge, and to a lesser second charge of disorderly conduct. The third and fourth sexual misconduct charges were dismissed.
She was sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement in prison and an additional two years of extended supervision on the first charge, and 90 days in the Community Reintegration Center on the second charge. However, the judge stayed both sentences, instead placing the former teacher on probation for two years.
A "stayed" sentence means the sentence is not imposed as long as certain conditions are met. In this case, those conditions include not contacting any of the victims or Rufus King High School, no unsupervised contact with any individuals under 18 except for relatives, forfeiting her teaching license, undergoing a sex offender assessment and maintaining employment.
Allemang-Reinke will also pay restitution to three victims and relatives, totaling $3,004.
Mastantuono noted the teacher demonstrated an "extraordinary" amount of cooperation with the law enforcement investigation into the charges against her. After turning herself in for arrest, Allemang-Reinke spent four days in custody. She consented to let Milwaukee Police Department officers search her phone.
As of July 15, Allemang-Reinke's teaching license is listed as "under investigation" on the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction registry, as it has been since at least April 22.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Rufus King High School teacher pleads guilty to sexual misconduct
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The vice president has been dragged into the controversy over Jeffrey Epstein's client list.
Vice President JD Vance has now entered the Jeffrey Epstein chat, with resurfaced footage from a MAGA podcaster coming back to haunt him. Vance went on Theo Von's This Past Weekend podcast last October, shortly before the 2024 presidential election. As the pair were discussing Vance's childhood, he noted: 'Everybody in politics has a vice that's much worse than alcoholism.' Von then says: 'Release the list!' Both men laugh hysterically before Vance adds, 'Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list, that is an important thing. We can go down that rabbit hole.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wife Blows Up Marriage by Secretly Spending $100K on Clothes in 2 Years, Spouse Claims: 'The Trust Is Gone'
NEED TO KNOW A woman secretly spent $100,000 of money meant for her and her spouse's future, the spouse claimed on Reddit The spouse divorced her as a result and now wonders if they overreacted in doing so "I can't stop thinking about what our future would've looked like — now it's just a closet full of overpriced fabric," the spouse wroteAfter a woman secretly spent $100,000 on designer fashion, her spouse filed for divorce. Now, they're wondering if the split was an overreaction. Still reeling from their wife's 'shopping addiction,' the spouse shared their side of the events that led the marriage to implode on Reddit. More specifically, they shared a post in the 'AmIOverreacting' forum, where they asked fellow users if they went too far in filing for a divorce. The couple 'got lucky with an inheritance and parlay' that 'was supposed to be our future - house down payment, retirement, you know, adult s---,' the spouse wrote. But their wife had other purchases in mind. 'Instead,' they said in the post, 'she went full shopaholic.' Their definition of 'full shopaholic?' She spent $100,000 of the inheritance in two years, and kept her purchases hidden throughout. 'At first I didn't even notice,' the spouse wrote. 'She'd come home with new stuff and I'd be like 'cool new dress' without thinking much about it. Then the credit card bills started rolling in.' The spouse tried to intervene, they claimed in the post. 'We had a talk,' they wrote. 'Then another. Then therapy.' But, in the end, 'Nothing worked.' Still, they stuck around — until yet another one of the wife's secrets came to light. 'The final straw,' the spouse wrote, 'was finding out she had a secret storage unit just for all the clothes that wouldn't fit in our closet anymore. Some still had tags on!' The issue, per the spouse, was not that their wife spent the money — it was the fact that the money was meant for their future together. 'I'm not controlling - she can spend her own money however she wants. But this was OUR future she was literally wearing away,' the spouse wrote. 'We're talking $4k purses, designer shoes she wore once, custom s--- I can't even pronounce.' 'I tried everything before going nuclear,' they continued. 'But when I suggested selling some of it to recoup losses, she had a complete meltdown.' Now, the spouse has filed for divorce. Their wife is 'staying with her sister who thinks I'm the devil,' they wrote in the post. Given that the spouse's parents can't even agree on whether they made the right choice — their dad is supportive, while their mom 'says 'in sickness and health' includes shopping addiction' — they decided to ask Reddit users to weigh in, they said. 'She keeps texting that she'll change, but I just don't believe it anymore,' they wrote. 'And honestly, the trust is gone. I can't stop thinking about what our future would've looked like - now it's just a closet full of overpriced fabric.' 'So,' they concluded the post, 'am I [overreacting] for walking away from someone who couldn't stop shopping even when it destroyed our future?' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. In response, users echoed the spouse's story, recalling other situations in which shopping addiction caused relationships to end. Several others said that because the spouse failed to mention the source of the "inheritance," they are unable to properly assess the situation. Meanwhile, the top-voted comment declared that if the spouse, as they stated in the original post, feels that they cannot trust their wife anymore, 'the relationship is," in fact, "over.' "Yeah man, trust is definitely the thing I can't get past. After finding that storage unit, it's like I don't even know who she is anymore,' the spouse wrote in response. 'She swears she'll change but also gets defensive when I mention selling anything. Classic addict behavior I guess?' 'The thing that kills me is imagining what that money could've been. Our first house. Travel. Maybe even kids someday. Now it's just... clothes. And debt,' they continued, adding that they 'appreciate the straight talk.' 'Sometimes,' they finished, 'you need internet strangers to confirm you're not crazy." Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
21 children removed from California home amid abuse investigation and claims of surrogate mothers being misled
Twenty-one children are in the custody of a California child-welfare agency while authorities investigate a Los Angeles-area couple and whether they misled surrogate mothers around the country. Fifteen children were removed from the couple's opulent home in Arcadia after an abuse allegation in May, and another six living elsewhere were also located, Arcadia police Lt. Kollin Cieadlo said. They range in age from 2 months to 13 years, with most between 1 and 3. 'We believe one or two were born biologically to the mother,' he said. 'There are some surrogates who have come forward and said they were surrogates for the children.' Silvia Zhang, 38, and Guojun Xuan, 65, are believed to be the legal parents, Cieadlo said. They were arrested in May after a hospital reported that their 2-month-old infant had a traumatic head injury, the result of a nanny at the home violently shaking the baby, Arcadia police said. The child was not taken to the hospital for another two days. Cieadlo said neglect charges were not formally pursued in order for an investigation to continue. The couple told police that they 'wanted a large family,' the lieutenant said. Zhang produced what appeared to be legitimate birth certificates, including some from outside California, that list her as the mother of the children, Cieadlo said. He said the FBI is also part of the investigation. A spokesperson declined to comment when reached Wednesday by The Associated Press. 'I'm not familiar with how the surrogacy laws work,' Cieadlo said. 'We need to do a much deeper dive.' TV stations in Los Angeles quoted women who said they were surrogate mothers for the couple but that they didn't realize so many other surrogates were also involved. It wasn't immediately clear if Zhang and Xuan had a lawyer who could speak on their behalf. Zhang did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Business records with the California Secretary of State show a company called Mark Surrogacy Investment LLC was previously registered at the couple's address. The most recent filing shows the business license was terminated in June. Kallie Fell, director of The Center for Bioethics and Culture, which believes surrogacy exploits women, posted a recent YouTube video of her interview with a Texas woman, Kayla Elliott, who gave birth last spring. 'She was lied to. She was told this couple had one other child and they wanted one more child to complete a family,' Fell told The Associated Press. 'She didn't know they were the owners of the surrogacy agency. They operate with zero oversight.' Elliott didn't return a request for comment. But she is trying to raise money to seek to have the child placed with her. 'I am prepared and deeply committed to providing that for her, but the legal process to secure placement is complex and costly,' Elliott said in her appeal on the fundraising site GoFundMe. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, which removed the couple's children, said it could not talk about its actions in a specific case.
