Vogel v. Gold
Case Date: 03/29/1988
Docket No: 870265
|
Vogel (Gold) v. GoldCivil No. 870265 Gierke, Justice. Defendant Danni H. Gold appeals from a district court judgment dated July 28, 1987, which modified the visitation provisions of the original divorce decree. Plaintiff Sarah Vogel cross appeals for attorney fees to cover the costs of defending the action on appeal. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court's findings of fact supporting the visitation award were clearly erroneous. Defendant also argued that in a custody-visitation decision certain constitutional principles require the trial court to maximize the amount of time the child spends with each parent. The defendant has provided the Court with no citations in support of his constitutional argument. This Court has stated that one who raises a constitutional claim "should bring up his heavy artillery or forego the attack entirely." Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass'n v. Bd. of County Com'rs, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977). Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded by the defendant's contention. We conclude that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(2), N.D.R.App.P. No attorney fees awarded on the cross appeal. H.F. Gierke III
|