Scheibe v. Scheibe

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Scheibe v. Scheibe

241 N.W.2d 100, 308 Minn. 449, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1787

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 9, 1976

Docket45677

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 241 N.W.2d 100 (Scheibe v. Scheibe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scheibe v. Scheibe, 241 N.W.2d 100, 308 Minn. 449, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1787 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

*450 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff mother appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial or amendment of a divorce decree insofar as it granted defendant father custody of their three children. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the custody award on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Alternatively, she seeks a remand for a hearing at which her counsel can cross-examine the author of the custody evaluation report and introduce additional testimony. We affirm.

It would not serve any useful purpose to summarize the facts. However, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265, 207 N. W. 2d 701 (1973); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 207 N. W. 2d 291 (1973); Minn. St. 518.17.

The rule with respect to custody evaluation reports is that, absent a waiver, an appellant in a custody case is entitled to a new hearing if it appears that the trial court based its custody decision in part upon such a report without first giving the parties an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report or to otherwise meet or answer adverse facts therein. VanZee v. VanZee, 302 Minn. 371, 226 N. W. 2d 865 (1974); Timmons v. Timmons, 298 Minn. 523, 213 N. W. 2d 335 (1973); Fisher v. Devins, 294 Minn. 496, 200 N. W. 2d 28 (1972). In this case we cannot determine with certainty from the record whether there was a waiver, but it does appear that the trial court did not base its decision on any information contained in the report (which, incidentally, was equally favorable to both parties). In view of this, we do not believe it would serve any useful purpose to grant plaintiff a new hearing. This decision is not intended to alter in any way the responsibility of the trial court in custody cases to provide the parties with an opportunity to read evaluation reports and to cross-examine the author or otherwisé meet or answer adverse facts therein.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*450 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff mother appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial or amendment of a divorce decree insofar as it granted defendant father custody of their three children. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the custody award on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Alternatively, she seeks a remand for a hearing at which her counsel can cross-examine the author of the custody evaluation report and introduce additional testimony. We affirm.

It would not serve any useful purpose to summarize the facts. However, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265, 207 N. W. 2d 701 (1973); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 207 N. W. 2d 291 (1973); Minn. St. 518.17.

The rule with respect to custody evaluation reports is that, absent a waiver, an appellant in a custody case is entitled to a new hearing if it appears that the trial court based its custody decision in part upon such a report without first giving the parties an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report or to otherwise meet or answer adverse facts therein. VanZee v. VanZee, 302 Minn. 371, 226 N. W. 2d 865 (1974); Timmons v. Timmons, 298 Minn. 523, 213 N. W. 2d 335 (1973); Fisher v. Devins, 294 Minn. 496, 200 N. W. 2d 28 (1972). In this case we cannot determine with certainty from the record whether there was a waiver, but it does appear that the trial court did not base its decision on any information contained in the report (which, incidentally, was equally favorable to both parties). In view of this, we do not believe it would serve any useful purpose to grant plaintiff a new hearing. This decision is not intended to alter in any way the responsibility of the trial court in custody cases to provide the parties with an opportunity to read evaluation reports and to cross-examine the author or otherwisé meet or answer adverse facts therein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W.2d 100, 308 Minn. 449, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheibe-v-scheibe-minn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack