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[...]
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Neglect – Likelihood of Repetition – Failure to Pay Child Support
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 [...]
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Father’s Incarceration & Release – Insufficient Findings
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 conv[...]
Murn v. Murn Where the trial court neglected to make a finding as to the number of hours worked by plaintiff’s counsel, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further findings as to the reasonableness of the amount of the award. Otherwise, we affirm.
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Right to Counsel – Waiver – Guardian ad Litem’s Role
In re P.D.R. Our Court of Appeals applied G.S. § 15A-1242 to find that a trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the respondent in a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) proceeding to waive her right to counsel. Section 15A-1242 applies in criminal proceedings and has no application in TPR proceedings.
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Support – Separation Agreement — College Expenses – Room & Board – Medical Insurance
Quinn v. Quinn The parties’ separation agreement said the plaintiff-father would “be responsible for the payment of any and all expenses necessary for the education of either of the minor children should they desire to attend a school beyond high school, to include college, technical or trade school, said expenses to include tuition, books and room and board.” The parties’ son cam[...]
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Custody – Insufficient Findings – Civil Practice – Continuance Motion
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 p[...]
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Support – Paternity – Civil Practice – Standing – Personal Jurisdiction
State ex rel. Davis v. McCommons A mother was receiving public assistance from Union County Child Support Enforcement for the support and maintenance of her minor child. Therefore, the State of North Carolina – through Union County Child Support Enforcement – had standing to institute proceedings against defendant as the responsible parent under G.S. Art. 9, Chap. 110.
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Sole Custody – Anger Issues – Involvement in Children’s Lives – Parents’ Ages
Gentry v. Gentry Where neither party asked for joint custody, and where the trial court found the parties’ animosity toward each other and their anger issues made shared custody inadvisable, the trial court did not err when it awarded sole custody to one parent rather than awarding joint custody to both.
Domestic Relations – Parent & Child – Custody Modification – Changed Circumstances – Starting School – Visitation Curtailed
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.
Bramblett v. Bramblett Where the plaintiff filed her request for attorney’s fees via a motion following the conclusion of the child custody and child support hearing, the request was timely filed.
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.
- O’Connor, first woman on US Supreme Court, has died at 93
- Judicial activists subpoena vote splits Judiciary Committee
- Judges block GOP’s election board changes
- Federal judge blocks first TikTok app ban
- Wisconsin unions sue to reverse bargaining limits
- Justices seem doubtful of SEC’s authority
- $120M judgment entered against failed dam’s owner
- Minneapolis stores where Floyd was killed sue city
- Bessie Sorge: Finding her passion as a freelance paralegal
- Teen charged as juvenile in fatal stabbing at school
- Star’s handwritten will used to distribute real estate
- Families offer to settle Jones’ $1.5B legal debt
- Name game can end up being blame game
- Stericycle decision forces evaluation of policies, practices
- Are workplace DEI policies still legal after SCOTUS decisions?
- N.C. justices to decide many interesting cases
- Amotion sees resurgence after almost a decade
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Court’s term was rough on big business
- Ex-president, bar association have made their choice
- Ruling sharpens boundaries in attorney-client privilege
- Lawyers Weekly debuts new and improved web experience
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment