Lithun v. DuPaul, 890064
Decision Date | 24 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 890064,890064 |
Citation | 447 N.W.2d 297 |
Parties | Marie LITHUN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Michael DuPAUL, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Kapsner & Kapsner, Bismarck, and Rodney Karl Feldner, guardian ad litem, Mandan, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Carol Ronning Kapsner and Rodney K. Feldner.
Michael DuPaul, Minot, pro se.
Michael DuPaul appealed, pro se, from a district court judgment restricting Michael's visitation with his two minor children. We affirm.
Michael and Marie Lithun were married in June 1976 and of that marriage had two children, Jason and Tina. Michael and Marie separated in 1984 and were divorced in 1986. Marie was awarded custody of Jason and Tina, and Michael received liberal visitation rights including, but not limited to, visitation on alternating weekends and major holidays, and a 30-day visitation period each summer.
On November 30, 1988, Marie filed a motion requesting the district court to restrict Michael's visitation privileges. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion restricting Michael to one supervised 30-minute visitation with the children each month, providing, however, that the supervising social worker could "enlarge the visitation" in duration and frequency if it was in Jason and Tina's best interests to do so. From the district court's judgment restricting visitation, Michael filed this appeal.
Michael asserts that the restricted visitation imposed by the district court is improper, unduly restrictive, and unconstitutionally violates Michael, Jason, and Tina's "personal rights."
The standards for awarding custody and visitation in a divorce action are provided under Section 14-05-22, N.D.C.C.:
The trial court's denial of visitation rights will not be overturned on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. C.B.D. v. W.E.B., 298 N.W.2d 493 (N.D.1980).
In granting Marie's request to restrict Michael's visitation, the trial court entered the following relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Rohrer
...for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review of the issue." Sabot, at 892 (quoting Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297, 300 (N.D.1989)). [¶ 14] There was a week-long trial in this case. On appeal, Carpenter furnished this Court with less than 250 pages of th......
-
State v. Kordonowy, 20140327.
...for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review of the issue.’ ” Sabot, at 892 (quoting Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297, 300 (N.D.1989) ).[¶ 24] Kordonowy claims the court did not correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law because it ref......
-
Lake Region Credit Union v. Crystal Pure Water, Inc.
...failure to file a complete transcript. Sabot v. Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc., 500 N.W.2d 889, 892 (N.D.1993); Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297, 300 (N.D.1989). If the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review ......
-
State v. Kensmoe
...for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, we will decline review of the issue." Sabot, at 892 (quoting Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297, 300 (N.D.1989)). Kensmoe has failed to file a transcript of the district court [¶ 15] Rule 10(g), N.D.R.App.P., provides for an agreed sta......