Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Madgett v. Madgett, 360 N.W.2d 411.

22 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of: A.L., Ian Larsen v. Sian Minske 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: Veronica Velaquez Barron v. Amin Foued Abdelwahed 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.; Brian Adam Castagneri v. Ashley Jo Klingbeil 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.; Matthew Ryan Foede v. Courtney Ann-Nicole Vaughn, County of Sherburne, … 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: Julia Loxley Hynnek n/k/a Julia Loxley Kaemmer v. Eric Martin Hynnek 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 v. Peter John Graffunder 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 v. Brian Patrick Selmser 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