In re E.J. Since a New York court had already made an initial determination concerning the custody of the juvenile, the N.C. trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a permanent custody order because there were no findings that the New York court no longer had jurisdiction or that North Carolina met the requirements of G.S. § 50A-201(a)(1) or (2).
Reed v. Olson Although the father argues that it was not within the trial court’s discretion to conclude that the parties’ daughter’s relationship with her mother was more important than her relationship with her father, step-mother and half-sister, the trial court did not find that the mother-daughter relationship was more important; rather, the trial court simply found that the relationship was important.
A North Carolina judge has restored custody of three U.S.-born children to their deported Mexican father.
In re K.O. Contrary to the respondent’s argument, the petitioner does not have custody of the juvenile at the respondent’s request, so the petitioner is not the respondent’s “alternative child care arrangement.”
A Rowan County father has won custody of his son after the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned a family court’s ruling that the father had sacrificed his custody rights when he let the boy’s grandmother temporarily act as primary caregiver.
Judges often aspire to the wisdom of Solomon, but in a case where a North Carolina mother attempted to file for bankruptcy, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals literally split the babies.
Pictured at left: Douglas Wickham of Hatch, Little & Bunn in Raleigh
Of the 55 words in North Carolina’s proposed constitutional amendment on marriage, three carry much potential for confusion: “domestic legal union.” As family law attorneys ponder how the amendment, if approved on May 8, would affect practice in areas like domestic violence, child custody and end-of-life decisions, they tend to focus on that phrase.
Jerkins v. Warren In support of its award of primary physical custody to the plaintiff-father and liberal visitation to the defendant-mother, the trial court found merely that both parties “are fit and proper persons for the roles assigned herein” and that “this order is in the best interest of the minor child.” These findings do not allow us to determine whether the trial court property awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ child to the father.
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.
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.
