(Pleasant Prairie Body Cam Still)
KENOSHA, Wis. — A Pleasant Prairie woman who admitted to having her husband’s dog euthanized behind his back was sharply rebuked by a Kenosha County judge Wednesday, with the judge saying she believed the killing was done to punish the woman’s then-husband — but the tongue-lashing didn’t translate into jail time or probation.
Maura A. Atwood, 33, pleaded guilty Wednesday to intentionally mistreating an animal, a Class A misdemeanor. Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Jodi L. Meier found Atwood guilty following her plea. Assistant District Attorney Vincent Kurta prosecuted the case, and attorney Jillian Scheidegger appeared with Atwood.
During sentencing, Atwood gave an explanation similar to one she previously gave Kenosha County Eye: that the aging dog was suffering and that she believed euthanizing the animal was the right thing to do. Meier wasn’t buying it.
(File Photo by Nathan DeBruin, Kenosha County Eye)
Meier raised her voice at Atwood and told her she did not believe her explanation. The judge said she believed Atwood had the dog killed as a way of punishing her then-husband amid their deteriorating marriage.
Despite those harsh words from the bench, Meier imposed no jail and no probation.
(Pleasant Prairie Body Cam Still)
Atwood Had Been Arrested Months Earlier After Altercation With Husband
Wednesday’s conviction wasn’t Atwood’s first encounter with the criminal justice system involving her then-husband.
On October 31, 2025, Pleasant Prairie Police arrested Atwood following a domestic disturbance. Police records show officers developed probable cause to arrest her for battery and disorderly conduct, both with a domestic-abuse component.
Ironically, that confrontation began in part because Atwood was concerned about an animal — her cat.
According to police, Atwood and her husband argued over the use of a chemical cleaning spray inside their home. Atwood told officers she was concerned the chemical could adversely affect her cat.
Her husband told police Atwood “began to freak out,” struck him in the left side of his chest and caused pain he rated as a five or six on a 10-point scale. He also told officers Atwood was yelling and screaming and that he feared she might hurt him further or hurt herself.
Police reviewed video her husband had recorded during the confrontation. An officer wrote that the video showed Atwood moving toward him while he backed away in an apparent attempt to separate himself from her.
Atwood told police the physical contact was accidental and also alleged that her husband had pushed or elbowed her. After considering both accounts and reviewing the video, officers determined Atwood was the predominant aggressor.
Police arrested Atwood for battery and disorderly conduct-domestic abuse and transported her to the Kenosha County Jail.
But the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office did not prosecute Atwood criminally for either offense.
Instead, Atwood received an ordinance citation for disorderly conduct. She pleaded not guilty in November. Kurta appeared for the State at her first court appearance.
The State subsequently moved to dismiss even that ordinance case, and it was dismissed December 8, 2025.
Less than four months after that arrest, her husband’s dog was dead.
Dog Euthanized Behind Husband’s Back
On March 17, 2026, Pleasant Prairie Police were called after Atwood’s husband learned that she had taken his dog to a veterinary clinic and had the animal euthanized without his permission.
Her husband had recently undergone back surgery. He told police Atwood said the dog was urinating blood and that she planned to take the animal to its regular veterinarian.
Atwood later left her husband a voicemail saying the dog seemed to be doing OK. She subsequently sent him a photograph of herself and the dog and said they were at a dog park while waiting for the veterinarian.
Minutes later, according to the criminal complaint, Atwood told her husband that the dog was choking.
She eventually returned home and told him she had put his dog down. The dog’s body was in the trunk of Atwood’s Jeep.
Atwood initially gave conflicting information about where the animal had been euthanized.
Investigators eventually learned that Atwood had taken the dog to Westosha Veterinary Hospital, where she presented the animal under a different name.
According to the complaint, Atwood told the veterinarian the dog was 14 years old, belonged to an uncle who had died and suffered from poor mobility and a poor quality of life.
The veterinarian told investigators Atwood had actually scheduled a euthanasia appointment weeks earlier.
Her husband told police the dog was 11 years and eight months old and had been his pet long before he married Atwood. He said his mother had originally purchased the dog for him and that he was the animal’s primary caregiver.
He said the dog had hip dysplasia and took pain medication but otherwise had no significant medical problems. He told police the dog’s regular veterinarian had seen the animal approximately a month earlier and had not recommended euthanasia.
After the dog’s death, her husband took the body to its regular veterinarian for a necropsy.
According to the criminal complaint, the veterinarian reported there was no obvious cause of death and that the dog “appeared healthy in every respect on examination.” A needle mark was found consistent with the lethal injection used to euthanize the animal.
Atwood Admitted Lying
When Pleasant Prairie Police interviewed Atwood, she admitted she had lied to her husband about the dog choking.
She also admitted her husband had never given her permission to euthanize his dog.
Atwood told police she believed her husband wanted her to put the dog down without telling him. She said she fabricated the choking story because she thought it would make the animal’s death easier for him to accept.
Police also asked why she used a different name for the dog at the veterinary clinic.
Atwood admitted she didn’t want her husband or his mother to discover which veterinarian had euthanized the animal. According to the complaint, Atwood laughed and told the officer that the false name she used was her mother-in-law’s name.
Atwood told police she was trying to take care of the situation “and not get caught.”
“I over stepped and made a call for someone else,” Atwood told police.
Her husband filed for divorce on April 9, just weeks after the dog was killed. Their divorce became final September 4.
Atwood Called KCE, Threatened Lawsuit
After Kenosha County Eye first reported on the criminal case, Atwood called this author twice and left lengthy voicemails asking that the story — or at least information identifying her workplace — be removed.
Atwood works at RG Performing Arts Studio in Kenosha, where she teaches children, including piano students. Atwood is also a liberal activist.
In one voicemail, Atwood claimed she was receiving death threats because of the story and said she was concerned about her safety while teaching children. She also said she owns a gun and could defend herself but did not want to have to do so in front of a six-year-old piano student.
Atwood disputed the account presented in the criminal complaint, insisting the dog was suffering badly from arthritis and hip dysplasia.
She said she believed her husband had effectively communicated that he wanted someone else to make the decision for him.
“He made it sound like that was what he wanted,” Atwood said. “And so then I was like, okay, I need to do this, because he, I don’t think he can handle it.”
Atwood also acknowledged the devastating effect her decision had on her husband.
“I would give anything to go back in time and not do it again, because obviously I really hurt him,” Atwood said.
She then appealed to this author’s Christian faith and asked for “kindness” before raising the prospect of litigation.
“My parents are looking into suing you,” Atwood said, adding that her mother had spoken with a relative who is an attorney. “I don’t want to sue you.”
Atwood asked that information about her employment be removed from the story.
Her explanation in those voicemails closely resembled the explanation she offered Meier at Wednesday’s sentencing.
Meier rejected it.
Judge Imposes Fine, But No Jail
Atwood had been scheduled for a jury trial beginning October 5, but instead pleaded guilty Wednesday.
The conviction carries a maximum possible sentence of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.
Meier imposed no jail sentence and no probation.
Instead, Meier ordered Atwood to pay a $5,000 fine plus court costs. The court specifically ordered that Atwood is not eligible for a payment plan. If the financial obligation is not satisfied, the court record lists 60 days to pay or 132 days in the Kenosha County Jail, with no Huber privileges.
Atwood was also ordered to provide a DNA sample and pay the associated cost.
Earlier in the case, Meier had prohibited Atwood from possessing animals. That condition was later modified so Atwood could have contact with her cat only if the animal remained at her parents’ home and her parents made all decisions regarding its medical care.
In July, Atwood’s then-attorney asked Meier to dismiss the animal-mistreatment charge. Meier denied the motion, finding probable cause for the case to proceed.
Nearly six months after the dog was euthanized without its owner’s permission, Atwood is now a convicted criminal. Meier made clear from the bench that she did not accept Atwood’s explanation for why she did it.
But after barking loudly at Atwood, the judge ultimately declined to bite.
2 Responses
Karma is a bitch.
Judge probably did the right thing although she may be reversed on not allowing a payment plan. $5K is a hefty fine and jail space is needed for more serious criminals. Probation would be a joke. Judge Schroeder often imposed stiff fines.