Vetter v. Vetter: The Right of the Child vs. Procedural Waivers

Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA (Investigation: Vetter v. Vetter, et al.) serves as a critical procedural analysis of human rights in the context of family law. Based on the precedent 2026 ND 36, this case establishes that parenting time is a fundamental right of the child, not merely a parental privilege, and can only be restricted under stringent evidentiary standards.

Key Findings

The Best Interests Standard: Parenting time is presumed to be in the child's best interests unless a preponderance of evidence shows a likelihood of physical or emotional endangerment.

Procedural Waivers: Arguments not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed on appeal are deemed waived, highlighting a systemic issue where justice is denied due to procedural technicalities.

Restrictive Thresholds: The case reinforces that parenting time should only be restricted upon showing actual danger, not based on the convenience or preference of the primary residential parent.

Evidence & Data

The investigation focuses on the 'medium' severity human rights implications when courts fail to distinguish between parental 'privileges' and child 'rights'. The data suggests that many 'justice delayed' cases stem from the failure of legal counsel to properly brief appellate courts, leading to the automatic waiver of rights that are essential to a child's well-being.

Legal Framework

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Article 9, which mandates that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities determine such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.

UDHR Article 25: Right to special care and assistance for motherhood and childhood.

Precedent 2026 ND 36: State-level legal standard for North Dakota, USA.

Recommendations

Legal practitioners must ensure all arguments regarding child welfare are fully briefed to avoid 'waiver by omission'.

Courts should adopt a 'child-centric' rather than 'parent-centric' view in residential responsibility disputes.

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