|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11% |
4. Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. App.,
1984) |
April 4, 1984 |
31 |
|
1. The trial court
erred in reducing visitation privileges of a father by
failing to make specific findings, pursuant to
Minn.Stat. 518.175,
subd. 5, that the
child's health or emotional development required a
restriction of... | |
| 23% |
5. Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. App.,
1992) |
May 5, 1992 |
30 |
|
Respondent contends,
we think correctly, that the endangerment standard
governs the case even if appellant is denominated a sole
physical custodian. Here also, less substantial
alterations of visitation rights are governed by the
best interests standard. See Danielson v. Danielson, 393
N.W.2d 405, 407 (Minn.App.1986) (alteration of
visitation accompanying change of custodial parent's
residence is not a "restriction" of visitation under
Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5). Subject to an...
| |
|
|
| 9% |
7. Anderson v. Archer, 510 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.
App., 1993) |
December 21, 1993 |
24 |
|
A substantial
alteration of visitation rights amounting to a
"restriction" of visitation requires findings that the
existing arrangement "is likely to endanger the child's
health or development." Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311,
315 (Minn.App.1992); see also Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5 (1992) (court may not
restrict visitation rights unless it finds visitation is
likely to endanger child's health or development). Less
substantial changes in visitation are governed by the
best interest... | |
| 5% |
8. State v. Alladin, 408 N.W.2d 642 (Minn.
App., 1987) |
June 23, 1987 |
16 |
|
In Koop v. Koop, 378
N.W.2d 121, 124 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), appellant was
sentenced to 81 months imprisonment for attempted second
degree murder as a result of his attack upon his
ex-wife. We held that Koop's character threatened the
emotional health of his child and, therefore, met the
statutory requirements to deny his visitation rights
under Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5. In this case, the facts
are even more egregious. Not only did appellant attack
his wife with a meat cleaver, but he...
| |
| 5% |
9. Theroux v. Boehmler, 410 N.W.2d 354 (Minn.
App., 1987) |
August 11, 1987 |
13 |
|
5. Appellant challenges the
trial court's characterization of a future interest in
certain farm land in Iowa as nonmarital property.
Respondent acquired this interest when his father (who
had inherited the land subject to a life estate)
executed a disclaimer in favor of his three children and
informed his children of this disclaimer in a letter
addressed to... | |
| 5% |
10. Kulla v. McNulty, 472 N.W.2d 175 (Minn.
App., 1991) |
June 18, 1991 |
12 |
|
Griffin, 267 N.W.2d at
735. Further, this essential right of visitation between
a child and its noncustodial parent is strenuously
protected. Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5 (Supp.1989)...
| |
| 5% |
11. Rigwald v. Rigwald, 423 N.W.2d 701 (Minn.
App., 1988) |
May 10, 1988 |
12 |
|
Judicial decisions on
visitation restrictions require the same particularized
findings. Minn.Stat. Sec. 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(3)
(Supp.1987) (court to restrict visitation if it finds
safety of child is penalized). See Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5 (1986) (court to restrict
visitation if it finds visitation would serve best
interests of child). The trial court here delegated
determination and control of visitation to a court
agency, but there were no findings on the need for this
judicial... | |
| 66% |
12. Courey v. Courey, 524 N.W.2d 469 (Minn.
App., 1994) |
November 22, 1994 |
10 |
|
9. Minnesota Statute
Section 518.175,
Subdivision 5, states
that visitation may be restricted if it is likely to
endanger the child's physical or emotional development.
Here sexual abuse of [the daughter] has been
investigated and substantiated by Child Protection. The
children must be protected as much as possible from the
fallout of the sexual abuse and any resulting criminal
investigation and charges. To that end, the Court will
suspend [the father's] visitation with the minor
children... | |
|
|
| 8% |
14. Funari v. Funari, 388 N.W.2d 751 (Minn.
App., 1986) |
June 10, 1986 |
7 |
|
Mere clarifications or
insubstantial modifications of a visitation schedule are
within a trial court's discretion and need not be
supported by findings that such modification is in the
children's best interests. See Chapman v. Chapman, 352
N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); Minn.Stat. Sec.
518.175, subd. 5 (1984). We conclude that
this modification is minor and well within the trial
court's... | |
| 10% |
15. Shepard v. Shepard, 352 N.W.2d 42 (Minn.
App., 1984) |
June 19, 1984 |
6 |
|
Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5 (1982) provides a court
"shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless
it finds that the visitation is likely to endanger the
child's physical or emotional health or impair his
emotional development." The statute also provides that
the court "may restrict a parent's visitation rights if
necessary to protect the custodial parent from harm."
... | |
| 4% |
16. Andros v. Andros, 396 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.
App., 1986) |
December 9, 1986 |
4 |
|
Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175, subd. 5 (1984) permits courts to
modify visitation if modification will serve the best
interests of the child. Chapman v. Chapman, 352 N.W.2d
437, 441 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). Appellant concedes that
visitation remains liberal. However, he claims that
restricting visitation so he cannot take the children to
his church unduly restricts his relationship with them
and abridges his freedom of religion. We disagree.
Appellant's freedom to exercise his religious beliefs...
| |
| 5% |
17. Clark v. Bullard, 396 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. App.,
1986) |
November 10, 1986 |
3 |
|
Bullard contends the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering visitation
supervised by social services and restricted to in-state
visits except by court order or mutual agreement of the
parties. This court will not reverse the trial court's
decision in matters of visitation rights absent a clear
abuse of discretion. Hennessy v. Stelton, 302 Minn. 550,
224 N.W.2d 926, 927 (1974). Restrictions pursuant to
modification orders are addressed in Minn.Stat. Sec.
518.175, subd. 5 (1984), which...
| |
|
|
| 9% |
19. Moravick v. Moravick, 461 N.W.2d 408 (Minn.
App., 1990) |
October 23, 1990 |
2 |
|
The September 22, 1989
order made restoration of father's visitation rights
contingent upon a determination by daughter's counselor
that visitation could be accomplished safely. No such
determination was made. Therefore, father's motion to
reinstate visitation rights is a motion to modify the
March 17, 1989 order denying visitation rights. The
trial court is required to determine whether
modification would serve the best interests of the
child. Minn.Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5...
| |
| 8% |
20. Heinlein v. Heinlein, 407 N.W.2d 138 (Minn.
App., 1987) |
June 16, 1987 |
2 |
|
The trial court is
afforded broad discretion in making visitation orders,
and the appellate courts will not interfere with the
order unless it is clearly erroneous. Griffin v. Van
Griffin, 267 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn.1978); Halper v.
Halper, 348 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The
court may not restrict visitation rights unless it finds
that the visitation is likely to endanger the child's
physical or emotional health or impair the child's
emotional development. Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.175,...
| |
| | |
|