<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Domestic Relations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/domestic-relations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 21:09:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Parent &amp; Child – Custody – Civil Practice – Findings of Fact – Testimony Recitation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-civil-practice-findings-of-fact-testimony-recitation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-civil-practice-findings-of-fact-testimony-recitation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 16:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ericahampton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflicting witness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Odugba v. Odugba</em> Where, in many of its findings of fact, the trial court merely recites conflicting witness testimony on key issues without making its own determination, the trial court’s findings of fact do not support its award of sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff-mother.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-civil-practice-findings-of-fact-testimony-recitation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Parent &amp; Child – Custody &amp; Support – Modifications – Insufficient Findings – Child’s Welfare&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-support-modifications-insufficient-findings-childs-welfare/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-support-modifications-insufficient-findings-childs-welfare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Custody Order]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bledsoe v. Bledsoe </em> Disregarding those findings of fact which merely recite evidence, the trial court’s remaining findings (that the plaintiff-father attempted to enforce the terms of a 2009 custody order, that the father takes his son to his after-school practices, that the son is old enough to pursue appropriate activities of his own choosing, and that the father’s motives for enforcing his visitation rights are suspect) do not support a conclusion that a substantial change of circumstances affecting the minor child has occurred.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-support-modifications-insufficient-findings-childs-welfare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211;  Parent &amp; Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Stipulation – Abandonment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-stipulation-abandonment/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-stipulation-abandonment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 12:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abandoned]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re A.K.D.</em>  The parties’ attempted stipulation to a conclusion of law – that the respondent-father had willfully abandoned the children for six months within the meaning of G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) – was ineffective, especially since the father never stipulated that his failure to see the children was willful. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-stipulation-abandonment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Parent &amp; Child – Custody – Temporary &amp; Permanent Orders – Insufficient Findings – Visitation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-temporary-permanent-orders-insufficient-findings-visitation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-temporary-permanent-orders-insufficient-findings-visitation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 18:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal custody]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Woodring v. Woodring</em>  Where a June 14, 2010 custody order did not address the plaintiff-father’s ongoing visitation and did not explicitly address legal custody, it did not determine all the issues between the parties; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/domestic-relations-parent-child-custody-temporary-permanent-orders-insufficient-findings-visitation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Equitable Distribution – Classification – Inherited Funds – Separate Bank Accounts&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-classification-inherited-funds-separate-bank-accounts/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-classification-inherited-funds-separate-bank-accounts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Congdon v. Congdon</em> Where the plaintiff-wife presented evidence that she inherited the funds in two bank accounts from her grandfather and always maintained the funds in accounts held solely in her name, the wife’s evidence supported the trial court’s classification of the funds as the wife’s separate property]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-classification-inherited-funds-separate-bank-accounts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; DVPO – Evidence – Hearsay – Medical Diagnosis – Criminal Conviction – No Final Judgment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/domestic-relations-dvpo-evidence-hearsay-medical-diagnosis-criminal-conviction-no-final-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/domestic-relations-dvpo-evidence-hearsay-medical-diagnosis-criminal-conviction-no-final-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cervical strain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Little v. Little </em> There was no indication that plaintiff’s doctor was unavailable to testify, plaintiff’s cervical strain diagnosis does not fall within any of the hearsay exceptions in N.C. R. Evid. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/domestic-relations-dvpo-evidence-hearsay-medical-diagnosis-criminal-conviction-no-final-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Separation Agreement – Unincorporated – Breach of Contract – Specific Performance Clause – First Impression – Ability to Perform&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-separation-agreement-unincorporated-breach-of-contract-specific-performance-clause-first-impression-ability-to-perform/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-separation-agreement-unincorporated-breach-of-contract-specific-performance-clause-first-impression-ability-to-perform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Separation Agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Reeder v. Carter </em> Even though the parties’ separation agreement says they are entitled to enforce it by specific performance, parties may not contract around an established legal standard. The specific performance clause in the separation agreement does not negate plaintiff’s burden of proving the equitable requirements for specific performance]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-separation-agreement-unincorporated-breach-of-contract-specific-performance-clause-first-impression-ability-to-perform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Parent &amp; Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Out-of-Home Placement – ‘Court Order’ – Civil Custody Order&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-out-of-home-placement-court-order-civil-custody-order/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-out-of-home-placement-court-order-civil-custody-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Child Custody]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re L.C.R.</em> Even though the trial court converted a neglect case into a child custody case when it awarded custody to the petitioner-grandparents, the custody order was still a “court order” within the meaning of In re A.C.F., 176 N.C. App. 520, 626 S.E.2d 729 (2006). Considering the order in the neglect case – giving DSS custody of the children – and the order in the custody case – giving the grandparents custody of the children, the children were in an out-of-home placement for well over 12 months prior to the filing of the termination petition]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/03/domestic-relations-parent-child-termination-of-parental-rights-out-of-home-placement-court-order-civil-custody-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211;  Civil Practice – Failure to Prosecute – Equitable Distribution&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/26/domestic-relations-civil-practice-failure-to-prosecute-equitable-distribution/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/26/domestic-relations-civil-practice-failure-to-prosecute-equitable-distribution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seek custody]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71642</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> Williard v. Williard </em>  Even though plaintiff contends that, every time she wanted to pursue her equitable distribution or child support claims, defendant would threaten to seek custody of their children, this did not excuse plaintiff’s delay in pursuing equitable distribution for nearly eight years after the case was administratively closed. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/26/domestic-relations-civil-practice-failure-to-prosecute-equitable-distribution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Civil Practice – Contempt – Parent &amp; Child – Visitation – Ex-Convict Brother – Attorney’s Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/domestic-relations-civil-practice-contempt-parent-child-visitation-ex-convict-brother-attorneys-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/domestic-relations-civil-practice-contempt-parent-child-visitation-ex-convict-brother-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Baines v. Baines</em> Plaintiff’s brother came to live with him; the brother had a history of drug abuse and a criminal history from crimes committed in support of his drug addiction, he was on probation at the time he went to live with plaintiff, and he was arrested for a probation violation but was released to reside with plaintiff. Nevertheless, the defendant-mother willfully violated the consent visitation order when she refused to allow visitation and unilaterally imposed extra conditions on plaintiff’s exercise of his visitation rights.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/domestic-relations-civil-practice-contempt-parent-child-visitation-ex-convict-brother-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
