Hatcher v. Matthews (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-252-16, 9 pp.) (Mark Davis, J.) Appealed from Guilford County District Court (Michelle Fletcher, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Where the parties’ Virginia custody order (1) was not entered into without prejudice to either party, ...

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances Child Custody

Hoover v. Hoover (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-224-16, 8 pp.) (Valerie Zachary, J.) Appealed from Iredell County District Court (Edward Hedrick IV, J.) N.C. App. Holding: The evidence before the trial court supported its finding that the defendant-husband had retired at ...

Tagged with: Alimony Changed Circumstances

In a custody modification motion, the trial court should have considered certain longstanding facts as potential changed circumstances since they weren’t disclosed when the original order was entered, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled on Oct. 20. When John ...

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances custody

Welch v. Willey (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-16-0737, 4 pp.) (Chris Dillon, J.) Appealed from Pitt County District Court (P. Gwynett Hilburn, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Because of the defendant-mother’s substance abuse problems, she was awarded only supervised visitation with ...

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances

Dickason v. Hayes Even if acrimony and conflict between the parties were not new when the plaintiff-father moved for a custody modification, the defendant-mother did not challenge the trial court’s finding that she failed to work with the father to adjust his visitation to accommodate their child’s school schedule.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances Custody Modification Domestic Relations parent & child

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.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances custody Domestic Relations Modification parent & child

Wolgin v. Wolgin The trial court clearly considered not only the parties’ disagreements regarding custody but also the effect on the parties’ children of the defendant-mother’s unilateral transfer of the children from their Durham County schools to schools in Wake County and her decision to put the children into extracurricular activities farther away from the plaintiff-father. We affirm the custody modification and denial of the mother’s motion for a new trial.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances Custody Modification Domestic Relations parent & child

Wolgin v. Wolgin The trial court clearly considered not only the parties’ disagreements regarding custody but also the effect on the parties’ children of the defendant-mother’s unilateral transfer of the children from their Durham County schools to schools in Wake County and her decision to put the children into extracurricular activities farther away from the plaintiff-father. We affirm the custody modification and denial of the mother’s motion for a new trial.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances Custody Modification Domestic Relations parent & child

Balawejder v. Balawejder Even though the defendant-mother dismissed her domestic violence claim against the plaintiff-father, domestic violence between the parties is one of the factors the trial court was required to consider pursuant to G.S. § 50-13.2(a) when it made findings as to the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s order as to custody and child support. However, we vacate the trial court’s attorney’s fee order and remand for reconsideration.

Tagged with: Attorney’s Fees Changed Circumstances custody & support Domestic Relations parent & child

Jouma v. Jouma The plaintiff-father filed his motion to modify custody and support in October 2009; therefore, the trial court’s October 2010 order did not retroactively modify the father’s support arrearage in violation of G.S. § 50-13.10 or 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) when it extinguished the father’s obligation to pay child support after Sept. 1, 2010. We affirm the trial court’s order granting custody to the father and requiring the mother to pay child support.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances custody & support Domestic Relations notice parent & child