Right of the Child: Analyzing Procedural Waivers in Vetter v. Vetter (HRPM-MMAPAUUA)

Investigation HRPM-MMAPAUUA, based on the precedent '2026 ND 36', addresses the critical intersection of appellate procedure and child welfare. The case emphasizes that parenting time is not a mere privilege of the parent but a fundamental right of the child, protected by a presumption of best interest unless a preponderance of evidence suggests endangerment.

Key Findings

The Waiver Rule: Arguments not adequately briefed or supported on appeal are deemed waived, often leaving the rights of the child vulnerable to procedural failures by legal counsel.

Burden of Proof: Restrictions on parenting time require a 'preponderance of evidence' showing physical or emotional endangerment—a high bar meant to protect the familial bond.

Child-Centric Rights: The legal shift moves away from 'visitation' as a parental trophy to 'parenting time' as a child's developmental necessity.

Legal Framework

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Article 9: The right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents.

Precedent 2026 ND 36: Clarifies the standards for restricting parental access.

Recommendations

Courts must ensure that the 'waiver' of arguments by parents does not result in the de facto violation of the child's rights.

Standardization of the 'preponderance of evidence' test across family courts to prevent arbitrary restrictions.

Read the full case file on HRPM: HRPM-MMAPAUUA