Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Madgett v. Madgett, 360 N.W.2d 411.
-
In Re the Custody of: A.L., Ian Larsen, petitioner, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
” T he decision to interview a child “is a discretionary choice” for the district court because “[a]n interview is not the only way to determine a child’s preference.”
-
In Re the Marriage of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But the decision is “a discretionary choice for the trial judge,” d 411, 413 (Minn. App. 1985), and the court may interview the child in chambers rather than requiring the child to testify, Minn. Stat. § 518.166 (2024).
-
In Re the Custody of: C.A.C. and P.M.C.;
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But even if she had, the decision to interview children in custody proceedings “is a discretionary choice for the trial judge” because “[a] n interview is not the only way to determine a child’s preference.”
-
In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.;
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that interviewing a child is discretionary and that, absent an interview, the district court may consider other evidence of the child’s needs and preferences).
-
In re the Marriage of:
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
20 has stated that “the prudent exercise of discretion” by appointing a guardian ad litem often “serves the best interest of minor children,” particularly “when the interests of the children may be different from those of the parents.”
-
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Lynn Green, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “[a]n interview is not the only way to determine a child’s preference.”
- In re the Marriage of: Rachel Ann Hughes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- Marriage of Knott v. Knott 418 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Marriage of Knott v. Knott
418 N.W.2d 505
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(preference of child is a factor to be considered, but is not necessarily determinative of final placement).
- Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Sheeran v. Sheeran 401 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Sheeran v. Sheeran 401 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Schwamb v. Schwamb 395 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Schwamb v. Schwamb 395 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 395 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 395 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Bloss v. Bloss 711 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer 375 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer
375 N.W.2d 820
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Although we have upon several occasions urged that home studies be conducted and guardians ad litem be appointed when the interests of the parents and child differ, M.M.
- Kramer v. Kramer 372 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Kramer v. Kramer 372 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985