Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

Grandparent Visitation/Custody Case Reviewed by North Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: November 15, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Powers v. Wagner, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a case where the trial court awarded primary custody of a minor child to the child’s grandparents. As with any grandparent visitation or grandparent custody case, the analysis is very fact specific and it is important to consider all of the relevant facts when considering such a case. Here, the mother and father had a child out of wedlock while they both lived in Florida. Mother and father did not marry. Mother eventually filed an action against father in Florida for paternity and child support. The paternity action determined that father was the biological father of the minor child. Mother also received an order for child support against Father. Importantly, no child custody determination was made in Florida.

Father took the minor child to North Carolina and the minor child lived with the paternal grandparents in North Carolina for an extended period of time. The paternal grandparents were granted temporary child custody of the minor child in September 2009. The paternal grandparents were granted permanent legal and physical custody of the minor child, with a structured visitation schedule for mother, in November 2009. Mother appealed and challenged two issues with respect to this family court opinion. First, mother contended that the trial court erred in finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Second, mother contended that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact supporting its conclusion that mother had acted contrary to her constitutionally protected parental rights.

While the trial court’s order did not explicitly track the language of North Carolina General Statute § 50A-102(7), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the trial court did make adequate findings of fact to support its conclusion that North Carolina had subject matter jurisdiction over this grandparent custody case. The North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that it is a better practice to for the family trial court to specifically outline its findings of fact pertaining to the “home state” of the minor child, it is not necessary.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with mother that the trial court did not make adequate findings of fact to support its conclusion that mother had acted contrary to her constitutionally protected parental rights. The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered the recent decisions in Bozeman (discussed herein at North Carolina Supreme Court Considering Same-Sex Adoption, Same Sex Adoption without Same Sex Marriage? and Same Sex – Second Parent Adoption Case Decided by North Carolina Supreme Court) and Price to illustrate the importance of the trial court analyzing the intent of the parent who is alleged to have acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected parental rights. Specifically, the trial court is required to consider the parent’s intention with respect to the relationship between the minor child and the third-party (in this case the paternal grandparents) when the relationship begins and as it develops.

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.

Prenuptial Agreements – Divorce Lawyer Fees Just the Beginning (Costly Sports Divorces)

Published on: November 3, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

An article recently on Yahoo.com entitled “Ten Costly Sports Divorces” seems to have been spurred by the recent announcement that NBA basketball player Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian were divorcing after only 72 days of marriage. According to this article, the Humpries-Kardashian wedding cost $10 million. Kardashian filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences. The couple had a prenuptial agreement in place, so the marriage and quick divorce should not create any complicated financial issues to resolve.

The point of the article is to illustrate how much these various sports figures would have benefited from a prenuptial agreement. Here are the examples that are cited:

Jeff Gordon and Brooke Sealey: The full details of the deal were not disclosed publicly , but according to a report by the Associated Press, Sealey was guaranteed $15.3 million from the sale of two homes. One might guess that she received significantly more than this in alimony and other property distribution.

Michael Jordan and Juanita Vanoy: Juanita Vanoy was awarded $168 million in the divorce settlement.

Greg Norman and Laura Andrassy: This settlement was for $105 million to Mrs. Andrassy.

Lance Armstrong and Kristin Richard: According to a book about Lance Armstrong entitled “Lance Armstrong’s War,” the settlement was for $14 million to Ms. Richard.

Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren: After the highly publicized car accident and allegations of Woods being unfaithful, Nordegren filed for divorce. The full details of the deal were not disclosed but according to “a source close to Nordegren,” she received $100 million.

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.

Spousal Support and Attorney Fees Paid to Abuser

Published on: October 28, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In a recent spousal support and attorney fees case out of California, a wife was ordered to pay spousal support to her estranged husband after he was convicted to domestic violence against her. The wife had financially supported her husband for years while he was both unemployed and abusive toward her. Finally, she secretly recorded an incident of domestic violence and took him to Court. After a jury trial during which the recording was played, the Husband was convicted of forced oral copulation.

When the divorce became finalized, the husband requested spousal support. The family court judge ordered that the wife pay to the husband $1,000.00 per month in spousal support and awarded the husband $47,000 in attorney fees. In California, as in North Carolina, judges have significant discretion when weighing marital misconduct in the context of an alimony award. Under North Carolina law, the only absolute bar to an award of alimony is the commission of illicit sexual behavior by the receiving spouse. Even adultery is not an absolute bar to an award of post separation support. Rather, it is one of many factors the family court may consider in determining the award of post separation support.

The wife earns in excess of $100,000 a year as a financial analyst and had been supporting her husband, a former car salesman, since the couple had their first child several years earlier. This was considered, as it would have been considered under North Carolina alimony law, by the Court in making its determination. The judge would have ordered the wife to pay $3,000 per month in alimony, but discounted the amount to $1,000 because of the sexual assault committed by the husband.

The Husband did receive an active jail sentence for the forced oral copulation. On this basis, the wife argued that the husband would not actually have any living expenses while he was in jail. Interestingly, the family court judge agreed with her. When the husband is released from jail in a few years, he will have the right to ask for spousal support again. The husband would be entitled to spousal support under California law.

This case is illustrative of a very interesting point. It is an excellent illustration of how much discretion family court judges have in most matters. As we have discussed here previously (Alimony Decision by North Carolina Court of Appeals) family court judges have wide discretion in spousal support cases. Similarly, family court judges have wide discretion in child custody matters. While it is difficult to imagine a family court judge determining, in their discretion, that the perpetrator of a violent felony would be entitled to alimony, there is nothing under California law which would serve as an absolute bar to the spousal support award. This wide discretion is one of the reasons why many family law matters are better off resolved by the parties in settlement. By resolving disputes by agreement, the parties maintain a level of control over the outcome of their divorce case. If a case goes on to trial, the parties take significant risk in allowing a third party, a family court judge, to resolve their divorce matters for them. Indeed, what may strike one judge as being appropriate in their discretion could vary widely from what might strike another judge as being appropriate under the very same circumstances. In short, because major decisions are often subject to determination under a very subjective standard, family law cases are often very unpredictable.

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.

More Divorce After 7 Years? Or 3?

Published on: October 20, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The common saying is “the seven year itch.” The theory being that around the seven year mark in a marriage, the couple is likely to become too comfortable and maybe even disenchanted with the relationship. Similarly, it may be that the rush of first being married has worn off. Or, maybe the couple has finished having babies so that thrill is gone too. Obviously, there is no formula which can predict with any certainty how long a marriage will last. Some end in divorce sooner, some end in divorce later, some marriages do not end in divorce. Perhaps the marriage ends when one of the spouses passes away.

But, according to a study in the UK involving 2,000 respondents, more couples run into trouble after the first three years of the marriage. The data seems to show that this is the point where the honeymoon phase really wears off. Similarly, this is also the point when the couple is likely to be making more significant financial investments together. Maybe the married couple signs an apartment least together, gets a joint bank account, joint cell phone contract, buy a house or maybe start having children (though it seems like couples are waiting longer and longer these days).

iPhone Helps Catch Cheating Wife

Published on: October 18, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

How many creative iPhone or Droid apps have you seen lately? There are apps that do just about everything. There is a flashlight, a calculator, one that logs you into Ebay, one for Facebook. Heck, there are even some that can be used in the context of a family law case. There is the good old fashioned voice recorder, camera, video camera sort of stuff. There are others that will help calculate child support.

Yet, there are others that are a bit “different.” There is one that purports to allow one to make calls to a telephone and make it appear as though the call is coming from someone else (on caller ID). Another one purports to allow the user to send a text message to a telephone and make it appear to be from another cell phone. Obviously, the implications of this sort of ability on divorce litigation and evidentiary matters might be troubling.

Well, when Apple released its most recent iPhone (iPhone 4s) and operating system (iOS5) it included a feature which utilizes the GPS functionality of the iPhone. This application is called “Find my Friends.” As you might imagine, it did not take long before a suspicious spouse used this application to keep a watchful eye on the other spouse.

Although this account has not yet been verified, according to an article on ABC News/Yahoo! (Your Cheating Heart: iPhone App Finds Wife With Another Man). According to this blog post, the industrious (and suspicious) husband got a new iPhone for his wife.

Order Granting Relief from Judgment Upheld by North Carolina Court of Appeals

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

The North Carolina Court of Appeal upheld a trial court which granted wife’s motion for reconsideration. In this case, both the husband and the wife had declared bankruptcy. There was a second mortgage on the former marital home. While both parties identified the second mortgage in their bankruptcy, wife asserted that she was not responsible for that second mortgage.

The parties had a hearing on post separation support. During this hearing, Husband’s attorney asserted that there was no mortgage encumbering the former marital home. The parties reached a settlement before the end of the post separation support hearing. They signed a memorandum of judgment which called for husband to pay $2500 to wife and to transfer his interest in the former marital home to wife.

Husband complied with the requirements of the memorandum of judgment by paying $2500 to wife and transferring his interest in the home to wife via a Quitclaim Deed. Wife subsequently learned that there was, in fact, a mortgage encumbering the property. She filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 and asked the Court to set aside the Consent Order. The trial Court granted the motion for relief from Judgment and Husband appealed.