Scheibe v. Scheibe
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1987, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Welfare of N.W. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Dennie v. Swanston (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 2009)
- Johnson v. Lundell (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- In the Interest of Jane Doe II (under 18 years) (Idaho 2018)
- Matter of Welfare of JMG (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- In the Interest of Jane Doe II (under 18) (Idaho 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff mother appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial or amendment of a divorce decree insofar as it granted defendant father custody of their three children. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the custody award on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Alternatively, she seeks a remand for a hearing at which her counsel can cross-examine the author of the custody evaluation report and introduce additional testimony. We affirm.
It would not serve any useful purpose to summarize the facts. However, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to defendant. Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265, 207 N. W. 2d 701 (1973); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 207 N. W. 2d 291 (1973); Minn. St. 518.17.
The rule with respect to custody evaluation reports is that, absent a waiver, an appellant in a custody case is entitled to a new hearing if it appears that the trial court based its custody decision in part upon such a report without first giving the parties an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report or to otherwise meet or answer adverse facts therein. VanZee v. VanZee, 302 Minn. 371, 226 N. W. 2d 865 (1974); Timmons v. Timmons, 298 Minn. 523, 213 N. W. 2d 335 (1973); Fisher v. Devins, 294 Minn. 496, 200 N. W. 2d 28 (1972). In this case we cannot determine with certainty from the record whether there was a waiver, but it does appear that the trial court did not base its decision on any information contained in the report (which, incidentally, was equally favorable to both parties). In view of this, we do not believe it would serve any useful purpose to grant plaintiff a new hearing. This decision is not intended to alter in any way the responsibility of the trial court in custody cases to provide the parties with an opportunity to read evaluation reports and to cross-examine the author or otherwisé meet or answer adverse facts therein.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.