The trial court did not include the offer of the mother to share the burden of transportation, instead it allocated all responsibility for transportation for visitation to the father. A trial court's decision on visitation is a finding of fact which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous as established by N.D.R.Civ. Because assessment of transportation costs is part of the broader issues of visitation and custody, we will apply the same standard of review to the trial court's determination of such costs. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The father argues the trial court erred by establishing an overly restrictive visitation schedule, more restrictive than the plan proposed by the mother, without reasonable justification.
District courts have the authority to grant a noncustodial parent visitation rights.
Visitation is primarily concerned with the best interests of the child. Visitation between a child and a noncustodial parent is not merely a privilege of the noncustodial parent, but a right of the child. The primary purpose of visitation is to promote the best interests of the children, not the wishes or desires of the parents. Visitation with the noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the child's best interests. In this case, the father lives eight hours away from his son and wants to develop a meaningful bond with his son through visitation.