See Fish, 80 Minn. at 320, 159 N.W.2d at 274; Aske, 233 Minn. at 541-42, 47 N.W.2d at 418. While it is true that the court stated in Hohmann that there may be circumstances where, "irrespective of his fitness, exceptional circumstances indicate that the best interests of the child clearly require that the surviving parent be denied custody," 255 Minn. at 169, 95 N.W.2d at 647, the cases relied on by the Hohmann court for that proposition did not actually grant custody to third parties, see State ex rel. Gravelle v. Rensch, 230 Minn. 160, 166, 40 N.W.2d 881, 884 (1950) ; State v. Markson, 187 Minn. 176, 179, 244 N.W. 687, 688 (1932); State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 76, 29 N.W.2d 479, 481 (Minn. 1947) — even when the third parties were in much better financial circumstances to provide for the child, see Markson, 187 Minn. at 179, 244 N.W. at 688. The Hohmann court clearly contemplated circumstances where a biological parent could be unfit for custody or would waive the right to custody by abandoning a child, but its best interest analysis was narrowly focused on the "exceptional circumstances" where a child has been in the long-term custody of a third party and wishes to remain there in the face of their biological parent's attempt to gain custody.
The rule of most jurisdictions runs to the effect that, when a divorce decree gives the custody of a child to one of the parents and the parent custodian dies, the so-called right to custody immediately and automatically inures, or accrues or reverts, to the surviving parent. Annotation, 39 A.L.R. 2d 260; State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 29 N.W.2d 479. The presumption is that the parent is fit and suitable.
We have recently said that in order to justify depriving a parent of the custody of a child in favor of third persons, there must be a grave reason growing out of neglect, abandonment, incapacity, moral delinquency, instability of character, or inability to furnish the child with needed care. See, In re Baby Girl Larson, 252 Minn. 490, 91 N.W.2d 448; State ex rel. Nelson v. Whaley, 246 Minn. 535, 75 N.W.2d 786; Kienlen v. Kienlen, 227 Minn. 137, 34 N.W.2d 351; State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 29 N.W.2d 479; State ex rel. Peterson v. Sanders, 215 Minn. 502, 10 N.W.2d 387; State ex rel. Olson v. Sorenson, 208 Minn. 226, 293 N.W. 241; State ex rel. Vik v. Sivertson, 194 Minn. 380, 260 N.W. 522; State ex rel. Feeley v. Williams, 176 Minn. 193, 222 N.W. 927; State ex rel. Fossen v. Hitman, 164 Minn. 373, 205 N.W. 267; State ex rel. Mattes v. Peterson, 156 Minn. 178, 194 N.W. 326; State ex rel. Machgan v. Pelowski, 145 Minn. 383, 177 N.W. 627; State ex rel. Larson v. Halverson, 127 Minn. 387, 149 N.W. 664; State ex rel. Lehman v. Martin, 95 Minn. 121, 103 N.W. 888; State ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 89 Minn. 198, 94 N.W. 681; In re Adoption of Anderson, 189 Minn. 85, 248 N.W. 657. 5. M.S.A. 260.01 covers the subject of what is meant by a dependent or neglected child.
Moss v. Vest, 74 Idaho 328, 262 P.2d 116; 17A Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, § 821; see, State ex rel. Rys v. Vorlicek, 229 Minn. 497, 501, 40 N.W.2d 350, 352. State ex rel. Gravelle v. Rensch, 230 Minn. 160, 166, 40 N.W.2d 881, 884; State ex rel. Herniman v. Markson, 187 Minn. 176, 244 N.W. 687; State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 29 N.W.2d 479; see, 38 Minn. L.Rev. 623, 630. State ex rel. Herniman v. Markson, supra; State ex rel. Neib v. Krueger, 143 Minn. 149, 173 N.W. 414; Gauthier v. Walter, 110 Minn. 103, 124 N.W. 634; State ex rel. Lehman v. Martin, 95 Minn. 121, 103 N.W. 888; State ex rel. Renning v. Armstrong, 141 Minn. 47, 169 N.W. 249; State ex rel. Machgan v. Pelowski, 145 Minn. 383, 177 N.W. 627; see, State ex rel. Nelson v. Whaley, 246 Minn. 535, 75 N.W.2d 786.
" See, also, State ex rel. Mattes v. Peterson, 156 Minn. 178, 194 N.W. 326; State ex rel. Feeley v. Williams, 176 Minn. 193, 222 N.W. 927; State ex re. Vik v. Sivertson, 194 Minn. 380, 260 N.W. 522; State ex rel. Olson v. Sorenson, 208 Minn. 226, 293 N.W. 241; State ex rel. Peterson v. Sanders, 215 Minn. 502, 10 N.W.2d 387; State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 29 N.W.2d 479; State ex rel. Rys v. Vorlicek, 229 Minn. 497, 40 N.W.2d 350. Applying the law to the facts in the instant case, relator has the first and paramount right to the care and custody of Christine, his daughter, and he should not be divested of that custody unless it appears that the best interests of Christine demand it. The record discloses that all parties to this proceeding are of good character and that Christine will be properly cared for, regardless of which party is awarded her custody.
In re Hollinger, 90 Kan. 77, 132 P. 1181. In State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 225 Minn. 72, 29 N.W.2d 479, involving habeas corpus proceedings brought by the father to obtain possession of his minor child after the death of the mother, to whom custody had been given under a divorce decree, this court recognized that a surviving parent has the first and paramount right to the care and custody of his minor child and that he shall not be divested of that custody unless it appears that the best interests of the child so demand. See, State ex rel. Platzer v. Beardsley, 149 Minn. 435, 183 N.W. 956; State ex rel. Fossen v. Hitman, 164 Minn. 373, 205 N.W. 267. Bell v. Krauss, 169 Cal. 387,146 P. 874; Wilson v. Mitchell, 48 Colo. 454, 111 P. 21, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 507; People ex rel. Good v. Hoxie, 175 Ill. App. 563; In re Smith's Guardianship. (Iowa) 158 N.W. 578; In re Hollinger, 90 Kan. 77, 132 P. 1181; In re Pinney, 91 Kan. 407, 137 P. 987, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 649; Ex parte Bourquin, 88 Mont. 118, 290 P. 250; In re Guardianship of Peterson, 119 Neb. 511, 229 N.W. 885; Clarke v. Lyon, 82 Neb. 625, 1
Holt has not cited any caselaw for the proposition that, in a dispute between two parents, one parent is entitled to parenting time whenever the other parent is unable to care for a joint child, and we are unaware of any such authority. See, e.g., Wallin v. Wallin, 187 N.W.2d 627, 630-31 (Minn. 1971) (grandparents); State ex rel. Merritt v. Eldred, 29 N.W.2d 479, 480-81 (Minn. 1947) (stepfather); State ex rel. Fossen v. Hitman, 205 N.W. 267, 267-68 (Minn. 1925) (aunt and uncle).