North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Posted in Lawyer to Lawyer

Published on:

By: Jennifer Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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. App. 2006). Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Jennifer Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

In this part of our series we are reviewing a case that is unpublished, but extremely helpful for family law attorneys practicing in Guilford and surrounding counties presenting testimony by professionals from a Children’s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. Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Jennifer Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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 has been police involvement. Often the social worker will speak individually with the child and will have vital hearsay statements from the child that need to be admitted. A particularly helpful case on this point is State v. Crumbley, 519 S.E.2d 94, 135 N.C. App. 59 (1999). Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Jennifer Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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 Billy were ages 5 and 3. Let us assume that at the custody trial 5 year old Aaron is permitted to testify about the sexual abuse. However, upon the start of the testimony, Aaron becomes inconsolably upset and cannot be calmed to resume his testimony. What then is the attorney to do? Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Jennifer Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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 determines the most viable hearsay exception that can be applied. In situations where a child has given statements to several professionals at a Children’s Advocacy Center, it can be frustrating as there is a dearth of case law on statements given at Children’s Advocacy Centers. However, a recent case from the N.C. Court of Appeals that is particularly helpful is State v. McLaughlin, No. COA15-333. Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Jennifer A. Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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 hearsay, “Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 803(4). While a practitioner’s first inclination may be to dismiss this hearsay exception as irrelevant since the statements were made to Grandmother who is not a medical professional, this exception is extremely flexible. Continue reading →

Published on:

By Jennifer A. Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law Group
By

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 well as the level of supervision and involvement of the parents when the abuse of the child occurred. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 risk when the unfairness is extreme, or when the procedural fairness of the agreement is a close question. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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. Continue reading →