Justice Delayed: Parenting Rights and Restricted Access in Vetter v. Vetter

Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA, involving the legal precedent '2026 ND 36', focuses on the fundamental human rights of children to maintain relationships with both parents. The case highlights the high evidentiary burden required to restrict parenting time and the legal consequences of inadequate briefing on appeal.

Key Findings

Presumption of Benefit: Under the legal framework, parenting time is a right of the child, not just a privilege of the parent.

Burden of Proof: Restrictions require a 'preponderance of the evidence' showing that the child’s physical or emotional health is at risk.

Procedural Waivers: Arguments not articulated on appeal are deemed waived, often leading to justice being delayed through procedural technicalities.

Evidence & Data

The investigation into Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA shows that without a showing of endangerment, the state’s interference in the parent-child bond constitutes a breach of the child's developmental rights. The status of the case remains 'active' with a 'medium' severity, indicating ongoing litigation regarding the specific evidence (or lack thereof) provided to justify restricted access.

Legal Framework

This case is navigated through:

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Article 9: Ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities determine it is in the best interests of the child.

Precedent 2026 ND 36: Establishing the 'Preponderance of Evidence' standard for North Dakota-based domestic law as captured in the HRPM research.

Recommendations

Strict adherence to the 'best interests' standard without allowing parental conflict to obscure the child's rights.

Legal education for counsel on the 'waiver' risks associated with inadequate briefing on appeal.

Read the full case file on HRPM for Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA.