By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2012
Johnston County ex rel. Bugge v. Bugge. Although a defendant who requested child support modification was entitled to the presumption of a substantial change in circumstances, the presumption was rebutted by evidence that he intentionally left his job, thereby voluntarily depressing his income.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2012
Jones v. Whimper North Carolina cannot exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s child custody matter since, at the time the child custody proceeding was instituted by plaintiff in New Jersey, New Jersey was the child’s home state for jurisdiction purposes of both the UCCJEA and the PKPA.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 31,2012
In re M.I.W. Even though the Department of Social Services filed its motion to terminate respondents’ parental rights while respondents’ appeal of a disposition order was pending, once the mandate resolving the appeal had been issued, the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the motion.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 19,2012
In re J.K.C. The respondent-father’s name on the children’s amended birth certificates creates a rebuttable presumption that he has legitimated them. Since the guardian ad litem failed to rebut that presumption, respondent’s parental rights were not subject to termination based on a failure to legitimate. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 19,2012
In re A.R.P. We reversed and remanded a termination of parental rights order because it lacked findings regarding willfulness. On remand, the trial court made findings of willfulness but did not make a conclusion of law that respondent’s parental rights should be terminated, a conclusion that termination is in the best interest of the children, or a decree that respondent’s parental rights are terminated.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 19,2012
In re J.A.P. An initial custody determination was made in New Jersey, the father still lives in New Jersey, and nothing in the record indicates that a New Jersey court has determined that New Jersey “no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” or that “a court of this state would be a more convenient forum.” G.S. §§ 50A-201 and -203.Therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the mother’s petition to terminate the father’s parental rights.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 28,2011
Weaver v. Thomas The trial court’s findings show that circumstances have changed since its original custody order in that the children have bonded with their new stepmother and the defendant-father has been more successful than the plaintiff-mother in dealing with their son’s anger issues. We affirm the trial court’s modification of custody, awarding primary physical custody to the father.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 28,2011
Underwood v. Underwood Even though the trial court concluded that both parties were fit and proper persons to share joint legal custody of their child, the court’s findings that the plaintiff-mother had been the child’s primary caregiver support its award of primary physical custody to the mother. We affirm the custody order but reverse the support order.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 27,2011
Swaney v. Swaney The valuation of the defendant-husband’s business could be based on the assumption that a covenant not to compete and an employment agreement would be included in a deal between a willing buyer and a willing seller. We affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution order, including its valuation of defendant’s business.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 21,2011
Porter v. Porter Seventeen years before the parties’ divorce, they separated, entered into a separation agreement/property settlement, and then reconciled. According to its express terms, the property settlement remains in effect and bars the defendant-wife’s equitable distribution claim.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
State v. Williams Although the bail-bond surety located and surrendered defendant to the sheriff on the 150th day after her failure to appear, the surety did so at 9:40 p.m., after the courthouse had closed for the day. We do not agree that the 150-day period set out in G.S. § 15A-544.5 extends until 11:59 p.m. on the 150th day.
Workplace strife is increasingly boiling over into the realms of social media. But when employees rant about their bosses on Facebook and badmouth the companies they work for on Twitter, what are the repercussions?
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
