Vetter v. Vetter: Weaponizing Parental Rights and Documented Psychological Attrition

In the matter of Vetter v. Vetter, et al. (Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA), an investigative review of legal precedent 2026 ND 36 reveals a disturbing pattern where the 'best interests of the child' are subordinate to tactical legal maneuvering. This report analyzes how restrictive parenting time, when leveraged without a preponderance of evidence, serves as a form of psychological intimidation against the non-residential parent and the child.

Key Findings

Presumption of Right: Under documented precedent, parenting time is not a parental privilege but a fundamental right of the child.

Burden of Proof Failures: Evidence suggest that restrictions are frequently sought without meeting the requisite 'preponderance of evidence' regarding physical or emotional danger.

Procedural Waiver: Arguments not adequately articulated or briefed on appeal are being deemed waived, effectively silencing substantive human rights claims through technicalities.

Evidence & Data

The case records indicate that the legal threshold for restricting parenting time—showing a likelihood of endangerment—is being bypassed. In HRPM-MMAPAUUA, the application of 2026 ND 36 underscores a trend where the lack of 'adequately articulated' arguments leads to a forfeiture of rights, a tactic often utilized in high-conflict litigation to exhaust the opposition. Statistics from the HRPM platform indicate that 'medium' severity cases like this often involve prolonged emotional attrition that mirrors gaslighting patterns found in domestic abuse cycles.

Legal Framework

The restriction of access between a parent and child without empirical evidence of harm violates several international and domestic protocols:

CRC Article 9: The right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

ICCPR Article 17: Protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with family life.

UDHR Article 16: The family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, entitled to protection by society and the State.

Recommendations

1. Strict Adherence to Evidentiary Standards: Courts must mandate a high bar for 'preponderance of evidence' before restricting parenting time. 2. Psychological Impact Assessments: Mandatory independent evaluations to identify weaponized litigation tactics. 3. Legislative Reform: Amending procedural rules to ensure that 'waived' arguments on appeal do not result in the permanent severance of parental-child bonds.

Read the full case file on HRPM: HRPM-MMAPAUUA.