Child Custody

Mecklenburg County Child Custody Case Remanded on Suspension of Visitation Issue

Published on: November 10, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A case out of the Mecklenburg County Family Court (Charlotte, North Carolina) denominated Maxwell v. Maxwell was recently considered by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. After being held in contempt, ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and having his visitation suspended, Father entered notice of appeal. He appealed the Mecklenburg County Family Court’s order on three grounds: First, he contended that the court erred in holding him in civil contempt of court for failing to pay child support. Second, he contended that the Court erred in ordering him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Finally, he contended the court erred in suspending his visitation. At issue in this case was whether the Mecklenburg County Family Court’s order amounted to a temporary order on child custody or whether it was a permanent order on child custody. We will only consider the second two issues in this post.

After taking evidence, which included evidence of physical and verbal abuse by the Father, the Charlotte family court judge ordered, ex mero moto (on its own motion), that the Father must go through a psychiatric evaluation before he may have visitation with the minor children (who happen to be quadruplets). In essence, the father contended that the Court erred in requiring him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation without proper notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. The North Carolina Court of Appeals disagreed noting that the Court has broad discretion in the determination of the best interests of minor children. Consistent with this broad discretion, the trial Court has the authority to order, on its own motion, that a party undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The last issue raised by appellant was whether the Court made adequate findings of fact to support its suspension of father’s visitation with the minor children. Interestingly, there was some issue here with respect to whether the Mecklenburg County Family Court Judge intended to enter a temporary child custody order or whether it intended to enter a permanent child custody order. The issue raised by Father was that the Court did not find that either (1) the Father was unfit to have visitation with the minor children; or (2) that it was in the minor children’s best interest that Father not have visitation with them. Indeed, these are the requirements set forth in North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 50-13.5(i).

As mentioned previously, at issue is whether this was a temporary child custody order or a permanent child custody order. The reason being that a temporary order would ordinarily not be immediately appealable whereas a permanent order would be immediately appealable. The North Carolina Court of Appeals treated the order at issue as permanent, and therefore immediately appealable, despite the fact that it was silent with respect to whether it was a temporary child custody order or a permanent child custody order. Importantly, the North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that the order at issue in the case at bar was silent with respect to a review date.

Change of Child Custody Decision Rendered by North Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: November 8, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Hibshman v. Hibshman the North Carolina Court of Appeals entered a ruling relating to a modification of child custody case. In this case, the parties had a prior child custody order (by consent) which awarded primary child custody to mother. Said consent order on child custody provided that said award of primary child custody was contingent upon Mother remaining with the minor children in a particular school district. The consent order on child custody provided that if motion moved away from the particular school district then the Court would receive additional evidence and would be free to modify the prior child custody decree without making a finding of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children. Interestingly, not only did the prior consent order on child custody provide for this stipulation, but the parties and child custody lawyers reconfirmed this stipulation at trial.

Ultimately, the mother moved and the Court held an evidentiary hearing in order to determine what would be in the best interests of the minor children. Again, the parties reconfirmed their stipulation that the Court did not need to take evidence on, or find facts supporting, a substantial change in circumstances to support any modification of child custody. The Court took the evidence and changed primary custody from mother to father. Not surprisingly, mother appealed and, among other things, argued that the parties could not waive the necessity of the Court finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children.

The Court held that there is no provision in North Carolina child custody law which would permit the parties to waive the necessity of the Court finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children. The Court noted that North Carolina General Statutes § 50-13.7 (Modification of order for child support or custody) governs modification of child custody and explicitly requires the finding of a change of circumstances before child custody may be changed. The Court noted that this requirement of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children is intended to bring about a level of stability in child custody litigation cases.

The Court considered father’s contention that mother had waived her right to object on these grounds and should be equitably estopped from being able to appeal on this issue. The Court noted that the requirement of a showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children is a statutorily mandated limit on the Court’s authority to modify child custody. According to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, it is not a personal right which may be waived by either of the parties. The Court also noted that the requirement of a showing and a finding of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children is a requirement which is intended to protect the minor children. It is not a requirement which is intended to protect either of the parents.

Tips for Dating Divorced with Children

Published on: November 1, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

As if dating someone new is not hard enough to begin with, there are plenty of folks who are in the dating pool who are divorced with children. A divorced parent who has a child (or children) is likely to bring with them all sorts of additional issues which would not likely be present with a nonparent. Fear not, what follows is a series of “rules” for dating a single parent from Yahoo!(as reported from the child’s perspective):

First, don’t lay it on too thick. Don’t laugh too much in a disingenuous or fake way. Rather, be genuine and be yourself. It may be better to earn the child’s respect than to worry about trying to make the child like you.

Second, no PDA (public displays of affection) in front of the child. The child is going to have enough other thinks to worry about and be uncomfortable about without having to watch you make out with their parent. A quick peck on the cheek may be acceptable under some circumstances. But, it is better to be discreet about such things.

Third, let the child determine how quickly the relationship develops and how deep it becomes. The child may be self defensive about getting too close to you for fear of the relationship between you and their parent deteriorating and having you out of their life. Similarly, the child may feel apprehensive or “disloyal” if they get close to you because of their relationship with their other parent (the one you aren’t dating).

Fourth, don’t be indifferent to the child. This is the opposite of rule number one (1). While you shouldn’t lay it on too thick, you shouldn’t be completely indifferent either. It will also make the child feel uncomfortable if you show interest in their parent and then disregard them or don’t pay a normal amount of attention to them.

Fifth, know your role in the “family.” Remember that you are not the parent and it is not your place to chastise or correct the child. Even if your dating partner tries to pull you into the middle of the situation, observe healthy boundaries. If the relationships (both with the parent and with the child) progress, you may feel comfortable become involved. But, do so diplomatically.

Sixth, be open with the child. Share information about who you are: your life, your background and the like. This will help you and the child to connect on a deeper level and for them to have a better understanding of where you might be coming from on different issues. Also, if the child doesn’t think you are a freak, they are more likely to be comfortable with your relationship with their divorced parent.

Seven, follow the golden rule. Treat the child like you would like to be treated if you were in their position. Try to be empathetic and understand the confusion and various pressures the child may be feeling. Remember, whatever it is that made their parent available to date you is likely to be a difficult situation for the child. Keep that in mind.

Registration and Modification of Foreign Child Custody and Child Support Order in Mecklenburg County Case

Published on: October 25, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals entered a ruling in the case of Crenshaw vs. Williams which came out of Mecklenburg County Family Court. This case involved a motion to modify child custody and a motion to modify child support. This case involved the registration of a foreign child custody and child support order in North Carolina for modification. This case illustrates important differences between North Carolina’s jurisdiction to register and modify a child custody decree and jurisdiction to register and modify a child support decree.

In this case, the parties had a prior Order from Michigan which addressed child custody and child support of the parties’ minor children. Ultimately, Father and the minor children lived in North Carolina with Father’s new wife while Mother lived in Georgia. Father registered the Michigan child custody and child support order in North Carolina and made a motion to modify child custody and a motion to modify child support. The trial court entered an order modifying child custody and modifying child support. Mother appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

With respect to the modification of child support, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) required that Father register the Michigan Order in Georgia to seek a modification. Since Mother was the obligor (the party who had to pay child support under the Michigan Order), UIFSA required that the Michigan Order be registered in Georgia. Georgia would then have the authority to modify the child support obligation, if it was appropriate.

With respect to the modification of child custody, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the registration was appropriate under North Carolina General Statutes Section 50A-203(2) and that the North Carolina trial court, therefore, had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the foreign child custody Order from Michigan. Since North Carolina was the “home state” of the minor children, it was appropriate to register and modify that child support order in North Carolina. North Carolina law dictates that the “home state” of a minor child is the state in which the children have resided for the six months immediately prior to the filing of the action.

Mother attempted to argue that the child custody and child support determinations were too closely intertwined to be determined separately and, therefore, the trial court should not have determined the modification of child custody issue since it did not have jurisdiction to determine child support. The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered this argument and rejected it because there was ample evidence that the trial court considered beyond the respective financial positions of the parties which related to the best interests of the minor children.

The North Carolina trial court awarded the Father primary custody of the parties’ minor children. There were numerous findings of fact which demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances affecting the wellbeing of the minor children since the prior child custody order was entered in Michigan. The trial court also found numerous facts which supported its finding that awarding primary custody of the minor children to Father was in the best interests of the minor children.

Divorce No More?

Published on: September 29, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a report by Reuters (‘Til 2013 do us part? Mexico mulls 2-year marriage), legislators in Mexico City are considering the concept of temporary marriage licenses. The new law would allow the couple to, on the front end, decide on how long their marriage would be. The minimum duration of of a marriage contract would be for two years – renewable upon the election of the couple. The couple would also decide, on the front end, how children and property would be handled if the contract is not renewed.

Divorce rates in Mexico City are much higher than in other parts of the country. In Mexico City, approximately half of the marriages end in divorce – often within the first two years.

Modification of Child Custody Decision Rendered by North Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: September 13, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals rendered an opinion in a North Carolina child custody case. In this case, Mother and Father were parties to a separation agreement. This separation agreement was incorporated into the Court’s Decree of Absolute Divorce which terminated the parties’ marriage and turned the child custody terms of the separation agreement into an order of the Court.

Only a month after the entry of the Decree of Absolute Divorce, Mother filed a motion to modify child custody. Mother asked that Father have no visitation. At the hearing on Mother’s motion to modify child custody, Mother alleged that Father had physically and sexually abused the minor child.

The trial Court found that neither Father nor Mother had proved that there had been a substantial change in circumstances which would support a modification of child custody and dismissed both motions to modify child custody. Mother appealed and took the position that some of the trial Court’s findings of fact were not supported by competent evidence.

Child Custody and Child Support Appeal Denied

Published on: August 25, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Moore v. Onafowora, the trial Court granted Mother sole child custody and determined an appropriate amount of child support to be paid to Mother by Father. Father appealed the child support award and the sole child custody determination. With respect to child support, Father contended that the Court erred by imputing income to him for prospective child support based on past years bank account statements. The North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial Court did not actually imput income to Father. Rather, the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial Court determined Father’s income from all available sources. So, that part of the appeal was denied.

Attorney Fee Issue Addressed by NC Court of Appeals

Published on: August 11, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the North Carolina case of Simpson vs. Simpson, the Court of Appeals evaluated a dispute over the award of attorney fees. The dispute over attorney fees arose because Father filed a motion to modify child custody. Motion moved to dismiss the motion to modify child custody on the grounds that Father failed to allege a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children. Mother’s motion to dismiss was granted and she subsequently sought reimbursement of her attorney fees. In support of her motion for attorney fees, Mother submitted a verified “Motion to Tax Costs,” a “History Bill,” and an affidavit of financial status. The trial Court heard Mother’s Motion to Tax Costs and allowed the parties to submit additional authority after the hearing but refused to allow the parties to submit any further evidence.

Termination of Parental Rights and Guardianship Goes to NC Court of Appeals

Published on: August 8, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the matter of A.S.Y, the North Carolina Court of Appeals evaluated whether a Guardian ad Litem for Mother should have been allowed to withdraw immediately prior to the hearing on whether to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The procedural history of this case is such that Mother requested assistance for herself and her daughter from Orange County Department of Social Services. That day, Orange County DSS assumed custody of the child and placed her in foster care. A Guardian ad Litem was appointed for Mother for the neglect and dependency proceedings.

Father Appeals the Termination of His Parental Rights

Published on: August 4, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the matter of D.H.H., the Father of D.H.H. had his parental rights terminated by the trial Court. The trial Court found three grounds on which it based its termination of Father’s parental rights. Father appealed and challenged only the first and second grounds on which his parental rights were terminated. Father did not challenge the third ground on which his parental rights were terminated.