For the next several installments of our practical series for family law attorneys in Piedmont Triad area, we will be reviewing the admission of hearsay statements through the business records exception, Rule 803(6). In this installment, we will consider the case of In re S.W., 625 S.E. 2d 594 (N.C.…
In this part of our series we are reviewing a case that is unpublished, but extremely helpful for family law attorneys practicing in Guilford and surrounding counties presenting testimony by professionals from a Children’s Advocacy Center. For those who are not familiar with Children’s Advocacy Centers, these facilities are designed…
In Part 5 of our series, we look at admitting hearsay statements made to social workers. It is common in cases involving allegations of abuse that a social worker will be involved at some point, whether the social worker conducts the initial interview, or they are brought in after there…
The next case that family law practitioners in Guilford and surrounding counties will find beneficial in the admission of hearsay statements is the case of State v. Hinnant, 523 S.E2d 663, 351 N.C. 277 (2000). According to our fact pattern from Part 1 of our series, the children Aaron and…
As we discussed in Part 2 of our series, family law attorneys practicing in Guilford and surrounding counties have difficulty when trying to admit hearsay statements regarding alleged sexual abuse in custody cases. While there may be several ways to have these hearsay statements admitted, it is crucial the attorney…
In our fact pattern from Part 1 of our series, the first indication of child sexual abuse was in the statements Aaron and Billy made to Grandmother. Family law attorneys in Guilford County would be wise to try to have these statements admitted under the exception in Rule 803(4) on…
When attorneys in Guilford County try custody cases in which there have been allegations of child sexual abuse, it is vital that statements made by the child regarding the abuse be admitted into evidence. These statements regarding abuse can be critical in determining the best interests of the child, as…
Previous posts regarding prenuptial agreements have discussed the validity of premarital agreements in very general terms, focusing on the broad concepts of procedural and substantive unfairness. Procedural unfairness creates a very real risk that the agreement might not be enforced. Substantive unfairness is not so important, but it can create…
Previously, we highlighted the risks of asking a future spouse to sign a substantively unfair agreement. These risks are not triggered merely because the terms of the agreement are not exactly equal. Rather, substantive unfairness is present only when the agreement passes some minimum threshold of inequality. So how far…
Our last premarital agreement post discussed the fairness of the procedures used when a premarital agreement was signed. This post will discuss the substantive fairness of the agreement itself. As noted previously, courts give considerably more attention to procedural fairness than to substantive unfairness. As long as fair procedures are…