The North Dakota Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling in *Vetter v. Vetter*, affirming in part and reversing in part a district court's custody decision that awarded primary residential responsibility to Kyle Vetter over the couple's minor child.
In the February 2026 opinion, the state's highest court addressed multiple issues raised by Michelle Vetter, who represented herself on appeal after losing primary custody to her former spouse. The case, designated 2026 ND 36, originated from the District Court of Burleigh County.
The Supreme Court's syllabus established important precedent regarding parental rights and custody standards. The court held that "parenting time between a parent without primary residential responsibility and a child is presumed to be in the child's best interests and that it is not merely a privilege of the parent, but a right of the child."
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that children have an independent right to maintain relationships with both parents, separate from parental claims to access. The court emphasized that parenting time restrictions should only be imposed "upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that unrestricted parenting time is likely to endanger the child's physical or emotional health."
Michelle Vetter raised six arguments on appeal, challenging various aspects of the district court's decision. She argued the court erred in modifying custody without establishing a material change in circumstances, violated her due process rights, and improperly suspended child support without adequate findings. She also contended that the court inappropriately delegated authority to a counselor and the child regarding parenting time arrangements.
Additionally, Vetter claimed the cumulative effect of multiple errors warranted complete reversal of the custody decision. She argued that continuing parental alienation by Kyle Vetter undermined their child's best interests, suggesting the custody award was inappropriate.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Fair McEvers, applied different standards to Michelle Vetter's various claims. The court summarily affirmed several aspects of the lower court's decision under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (8), which allows for abbreviated treatment of certain appeals.
However, the court found merit in Vetter's challenge to the parenting time determination. The justices concluded that "the district court improperly delegated and made inadequate findings supporting its decision on Michelle Vetter's parenting time." This finding led the court to determine that the lower court's parenting time decision was "clearly erroneous."
The clearly erroneous standard represents a significant finding in appellate review, indicating the district court's decision lacked proper legal foundation or adequate factual support. This standard requires appellate courts to reverse when they have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made in the trial court's findings.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in family law proceedings, particularly when parties represent themselves. Michelle Vetter appeared pro se throughout the appeal process, while Kyle Vetter was represented by attorney Theresa L. Kellington of Bismarck.
The Supreme Court's decision also addressed procedural requirements for appellate arguments. The syllabus notes that "arguments that are not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed on appeal are not considered and are deemed waived." This principle serves as a reminder to appellants about the importance of thorough legal briefing in appeals.
The mixed ruling demonstrates the court's careful analysis of complex custody matters. While affirming the primary residential responsibility award to Kyle Vetter, the court's reversal on parenting time issues suggests concern about the process used to determine Michelle Vetter's access to the child.
The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings specifically regarding parenting time arrangements. This remand requires the lower court to make proper findings and avoid improper delegation of authority when determining parenting schedules.
The ruling reinforces North Dakota's commitment to protecting children's relationships with both parents while ensuring proper legal standards are followed in custody determinations. The decision emphasizes that restrictions on parental access require clear evidence of potential harm to the child.
This case serves as important guidance for family courts throughout North Dakota regarding the balance between protecting children's welfare and preserving parental relationships. The Supreme Court's emphasis on children's independent rights to parental contact reflects evolving understanding of child development and family dynamics in custody proceedings.
The remand ensures that Michelle Vetter will have another opportunity to present her case regarding parenting time, with proper legal standards applied by the district court. The decision underscores the importance of adequate findings and proper delegation of authority in sensitive family law matters.