Court Opinion

ID: 7880781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 21:23:59.561156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:31:34.817161
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Michael DuPauI appeals from a judgment severely restricting his visitation. He alleges that the court violated his constitutional rights by the restrictions it imposed. Given the facts, however, authority does not support his claims. Dschaak v. Dschaak, 479 N.W.2d 484 (N.D.1992); Lithun v. DuPaul, 449 N.W.2d 810 (N.D.1989); Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297 (N.D.1989); C.B.D. v. W.E.B., 298 N.W.2d 493 (N.D.1980). We summarily affirm the district court’s ruling pursuant to NDRAppP 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
VANDE WALLE, C.J., and NEUMANN, LEVINE, SANDSTROM and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.