The Architecture of Abandonment: Mapping Psychological Harm in HRPM-MMAPAUUA

In the matter of Vetter v. Vetter, et al. (Case No. HRPM-MMAPAUUA), an investigation into legal precedent [2026 ND 36] reveals a disturbing pattern of psychological warfare enacted through the restriction of parental rights. This report analyzes the documented efforts to sever the bond between parent and child, framing it not as a legal dispute, but as a violation of the child's fundamental right to emotional stability.

Key Findings

The Presumption of Best Interest: Current legal standards establish that parenting time is a right belonging to the child, yet administrative hurdles are being used to obstruct this necessity.

Burden of Proof Failures: Under documented precedent, parenting time should only be restricted upon showing a 'preponderance of the evidence' of physical or emotional danger. No such evidence has been verified in the active pulse of this case.

Long-term Psychological Impact: The systematic delay in adjudicating these rights mirrors gaslighting techniques used to alienate children from non-residential parents.

Evidence & Data

The investigation centers on the 2026 ND 36 precedent, which underscores that arguments not adequately articulated or briefed on appeal are deemed waived. This procedural technicality often masks deeper systemic failures where emotional health is leveraged for legal leverage. By failing to provide a clear showing of endangerment, the restriction of parenting time in HRPM-MMAPAUUA constitutes a state-sanctioned disruption of the developmental bond.

"Parenting time is not merely a privilege of the parent, but a right of the child." — [2026 ND 36]

Legal Framework

These actions intersect with several international and domestic legal benchmarks:

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 necessary for the best interests of the child.

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

Precedent Case Law: The specific North Dakota 2026 standards regarding the 'preponderance of evidence' for endangerment.

Recommendations

Immediate restoration of unrestricted parenting time is necessary to mitigate ongoing psychological harm. Courts must strictly interpret the 'endangerment' threshold to prevent the weaponization of residential status. Read the full case file on HRPM.