Psychological Warfare and Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA: Mapping Abuse Patterns in Family Law Standoffs

In the matter of Vetter v. Vetter, et al. (Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA), investigative research highlights a disturbing intersection between legal maneuvering and psychological harm. This report analyzes the systemic implications of withholding parenting time as a tool of emotional coercion, articulated through the lens of North Dakota precedent [2026 ND 36]. The investigation focuses on the documented presumption that parenting time is a fundamental right of the child, not merely a parental privilege, and how the restriction of this right without a preponderance of evidence constitutes a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Key Findings

Weaponization of Parental Access: Evidence suggests that parenting time is frequently used as a leverage point in emotional disputes, contrary to the legal standard that restrictions should only occur upon showing clear endangerment to the child's physical or emotional health.

Procedural Waivers: Under [2026 ND 36], arguments not adequately supported or briefed on appeal are deemed waived, a mechanism that can inadvertently punish self-represented or under-resourced litigants facing sophisticated psychological intimidation.

The Best Interest Standard: There is a documented failure to treat the child’s emotional stability as a primary factor, often prioritizing adversarial litigation over child welfare.

Evidence & Data

The case data from HRPM-MMAPAUUA underscores the necessity of a preponderance of evidence before any restriction of parenting time is enacted. In modern family law disputes, gaslighting—the systemic manipulation of a person’s perception of reality—is often used to manufacture the 'endangerment' required by courts. This investigation notes that without specific forensic psych evaluations, these claims frequently border on civil rights violations under Article 19 of the CRC, which mandates protection from all forms of mental violence.

"Parenting time should be restricted only upon a showing... that unrestricted parenting time is likely to endanger the child's physical or emotional health." — [2026 ND 36]

Legal Framework

The denial of access between a parent and child without due process infringes upon Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 23 recognizes the family as the fundamental group unit of society, entitled to protection by the State. In Case HRPM-MMAPAUUA, the legal struggle reflects a broader constitutional crisis regarding the right to family life and the protection against arbitrary state-sanctioned separation.

Recommendations

Courts must mandate early psychological screening in cases where parental alienation or gaslighting is alleged to ensure the 'best interest' standard is not subverted by perjury.

Strict adherence to the evidentiary standards of [2026 ND 36] must be maintained to prevent the 'waive' of rights due to inadequate briefing in high-stress, high-conflict scenarios.

Read the full case file on HRPM for detailed analysis of HRPM-MMAPAUUA.