In the United States, fewer than half of the children live in a household with just their siblings and married parents. The other children live in a variety of relationships and family structures that often mean that more than two people act as parents in a child’s life. Continue reading →
Webb v. Jarvis, 2022-NCCOA-499 (unpublished).
This is a case for non-parent custody. Defendant Jarvis and Sarah Webb had a child together. They were not married. The parents shared custody of the minor child pursuant to a parenting agreement. In 2015, Sarah Webb unfortunately passed from cervical cancer. At the time Sarah died, she was living with her sister, Tina Peatross, the other Defendant in this case. Presumably, Sarah Webb exercised her custodial time at the Peatross home.
Before Sarah Webb died, she expressed her wishes that the minor child live with Peatross. Jarvis consented to Webb being a guardian for the minor child. In 2017, Jarvis was arrested for drug related charges and attained habitual felon status; it was his custodial weekend when he was arrested. Plaintiff Sarah Webb’s mother and father (minor child’s maternal grandparents) filed for visitation in 2017 prior to Jarvis’ arrests. Peatross counterclaimed for custody. Jarvis filed a motion to dismiss based on standing.
The trial court in 2020 found that Peatross had standing, and that Jarvis had acted inconsistent with constitutional parental rights. Jarvis appealed. Continue reading →
Plaintiff Jolin Brady (“Mother”) and Defendant Erron Brady (“Father”) were married on April 26, 1997. Father and Mother had four children. Father was in undergraduate school at Brigham Young University when the parties married. While Father was in dental school, Mother worked as a paralegal and then stopped working when the parties’ eldest son was born. In 2002, Father and Mother moved to Charlotte, North Carolina once Father finished dental school. Father owns his own dental practice. In 2014, Mother began working as a part-time yoga instructor.
Turner v. Oakley, 2022-NCCOA-266.
Facts: The parties to the case had one child together and never married. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint for custody of the child. He was granted secondary custody, with Defendant having primary custody. In 2018, Plaintiff filed an emergency custody ex parte motion, and alleged that there had been a substantial change in circumstances that affected the child’s welfare since the entry of the 2013 order. The trial court granted the emergency custody motion and, at the end of the hearing on emergency custody, granted Plaintiff primary physical and legal custody. Defendant was granted supervised visitation. Defendant moved for a visitation schedule in 2019. Orders were entered that addressed a visitation schedule. Then, in 2019, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s custody motion filed in 2018. In 2020, the trial court entered orders modifying the 2013 child custody order, granting primary custody to Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →
Military Parents and Relocation
Part of being in the military is having very limited input as to where you are stationed. If you are a military parent who is not with your child’s other parent, this can mean moving far away from them. A move like that can have a major impact on the custody of your children.
No matter where you are stationed, it is important to reach out to a civilian family law attorney when dealing with custody. Custody is civilian law, and your JAG corps will not be able to help you very much. Which court has jurisdiction over your child is usually based on where your child has lived for the past six months. If you have moved around often due to military service, it may be difficult to determine what court you should file in without the help of an experienced attorney. Continue reading →
Hicks v. Hicks, 2022-NCCOA-139.
Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant attended a mediation to attempt to settle the Equitable Distribution and alimony parts of their case. In mediation, they reached a settlement and memorialized their terms in a consent order, entered in September of 2018. Among those terms, Defendant received a parcel of land with a requirement to refinance the loan to remove Plaintiff’s name and debt. Defendant also received another parcel of land, with a similar refinance provision. Finally, the consent order provided that Plaintiff shall pay a distributive award to Defendant for $87,500, on or before January 1, 2019. Defendant was having difficulty refinancing the loans on the parcels he received. Plaintiff’s counsel reached out the Defendant’s new counsel to discuss the issue of the loans, but then noticed that “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” on the distributive award provision were interchanged (the parties agreed that Plaintiff would be receiving the award). Plaintiff thus filed a Rule 60 motion on April 15, 2020, requesting that the court correct a clerical mistake under 60(a) or such other justifiable relief under 60(b)(6). Plaintiff and her attorney testified that it was the mutual agreement that Plaintiff receive the award, and Defendant pay it. The trial court granted relief under 60(b)(6) and amended the typo. Defendant appeals. Continue reading →
Custody and Deployment
Being deployed or stationed somewhere that your child cannot follow is a major stressor for parents in the military. How will your child do without you? What will your life be like without them around? If you are not with your child’s other parent, you also have another concern – what will happen to your custody arrangement while you are gone? Will the other parent allow your family members to maintain their relationships with your child? In case there isn’t already a plan in place for your deployment, the courts in North Carolina have a process to help you get any custody issues settled before you leave. Continue reading →
Preston v. Preston, 2022-NCCOA-207.
Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1988, and began divorce proceedings in 2018. Plaintiff filed his claim for divorce in October of 2018. In July 2019, Defendant filed her answer with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process, failure to state a claim, and a motion for sanctions. Defendant’s chief argument was that Plaintiff was not a resident of North Carolina and not a resident of Mecklenburg County. The trial court found otherwise. In an interesting turn of events, Defendant verified her complaint for postseparation support, alimony, equitable distribution and fees just a day before the hearing for her motions to dismiss. In her complaint Defendant actually stated that Plaintiff was a resident of North Carolina. Her complaint was then filed an hour after the hearing on the motions to dismiss. Defendant later filed a motion to stay the divorce, which was denied. Plaintiff then motioned for Rule 11 sanctions based on Defendant’s conduct. The trial court granted and ordered that Defendant pay $15,000 in fees to Plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Continue reading →
Parents Stationed in the US
If you are a parent and a member of the US Military, we at Woodruff Family Law Group thank you for your service! If you are not with your child’s other parent, you are probably concerned about what your military service will mean for your custody agreement or custody battle. Being in the military limits where you can live, when you can have leave, and what your daily schedule will be. How will that impact your children? What will a court think about those impacts? Fortunately, the federal and North Carolina state governments have acted to provide you with some protections in these situations. Continue reading →
Shropshire v. Shropshire, 2022-NCCOA-441.
Plaintiff and Defendant separated and initiated a case for Equitable distribution (ED). Pursuant to a pretrial Order, the parties filed affidavits for the ED trial. Both parties listed retirement plans under the “marital property” section of the affidavit. This included the Plaintiff’s 401(k) plan. Furthermore, both parties designated that Plaintiff’s retirement plans had values to be determined for date of separation and “net” value. Under the section of the affidavit marked for “divisible property,” neither party listed any property.
In a hearing in August of 2018, the parties testified about ED. In October 2018, the trial court judge told the parties that evidence was going to be reopened so that evidence could be presented that showed the date of trial values for the retirement plans, as well as value of the marital residence. Plaintiff objected to the reopening and filed a motion to recuse.
The motion was denied in trial court and the reopening was allowed. The information was provided over objections, and a final ED order was entered. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog