Sood v. Sood The trial court’s custody order was temporary in that it left open the issues of psychological evaluations of the parties’ mental conditions, the defendant-father’s child support arrearage, and holiday schedules after the 2012 spring break. In fact, the father concedes in his brief that the custody order is temporary. Therefore, the order is interlocutory.
In re C.A.C. When the petitioner-mother sought to serve the respondent-father by publication, she was required to comply with the notice provisions of both N.C. R. Civ. P. 4(j1) and G.S. § 7B-1106(b). Since the notice that the mother placed in the newspaper completely omitted any reference to the father’s right to counsel, she failed to comply with § 7B-1106(b)(4).
Sides v. Ikner The plaintiff-father fully complied with the custody order which gave him joint legal and secondary physical custody of his son, “Luke.” When he learned that the defendant-mother had joined the Air Force -- not the Air Force Reserves as she had told him -- and was moving to Germany, the father objected to allowing Luke to continue to live with the intervenor-grandmother.
Cabbs v. Cabbs Even though the parties’ children spend 130 to 140 days per year with the defendant-father, since the plaintiff-mother pays the bulk of the children’s expenses, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by calculating the father’s child support obligation pursuant to Worksheet A rather than Worksheet B.
Johnson v. Zimmer It’s not just “heads on the beds” that count when a bankruptcy court is trying to determine “household” size for a Chapter 13 debtor in a “blended” household that includes children and step-children who are part-time residents, but the “economic unit,” the 4th Circuit says in this first-impression case for all circuit courts; debtor may amend her plan to reflect a household of five, not seven.
In re V.A. Where the juvenile’s great-grandmother in South Carolina had not been approved for placement by South Carolina authorities, the trial court violated the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children by placing the juvenile with the great-grandmother.
Meeker v. Meeker The trial court erred when it deviated from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines without making findings about the amount needed for the child’s health, education and maintenance.
Greco v. Greco Even though there was evidence that the plaintiff-father had earned income (from his relatives) in 2011, the trial court only considered the father’s 2010 income when it modified his child support obligation in July 2011. The trial court’s order did not make findings to justify its failure to consider the father’s 2011 income. Since the trial court failed to calculate the father’s child support obligation using his actual income at the time the order was modified, the order does not comply with the N.C. Child Support Guidelines.
In re J.E.M. The respondent-father made no effort to visit his son in the five months prior to the termination-of-parental rights hearing; the father met with a parenting class instructor only once, although parenting classes were part of his case plan and the father was only employed part-time. This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that past neglect would be repeated if the child were returned to respondent.
In re G.B.R. The trial court failed to consider any evidence of changed conditions – respondent’s progress in prison, his release from prison, his employment and living conditions -- in light of the evidence of prior neglect and the probability of a repetition of neglect. Thus, the trial court’s termination of respondent’s parental rights is not supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
