North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Tagged with 50B Protective Order

Published on:

By

Plaintiff filed a complaint and motion for domestic violence protective order (hereinafter “DVPO”) on March 12, 2021.  When using form AOC-CV-303, Plaintiff described no instances where Defendant either threatened use or actually used a firearm in the context of domestic violence.  However, Plaintiff did describe instances of harassment.   Additionally, when prompted by the form AOC-CV-303 regarding whether Defendant had firearms and ammunition in his possession, Plaintiff noted that she was uncertain of how many or where Defendant kept his firearms and ammunition given the parties had been divorced since March of 2016.  In addition to leaving the space blank on the form AOC-CV-303 as to whether the Defendant had a “pattern of threatened use of violence with a firearm against any persons,” Plaintiff also did not indicate that she wished the Court to prohibit Defendant from possessing or purchasing firearms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

KEENAN V. KEENAN, 2022-NCCOA-554.

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant were divorced. In August of 2022, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant came to her home to cut some grass despite Plaintiff telling Defendant not to do so. Defendant then refused to leave the home when Plaintiff asked several times. It should be noted that Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that Plaintiff’s brother had already made plans to address the lawn. Plaintiff alleged that she was very afraid of Defendant due to his past acts of emotional/physical abuse and past text messages. A temporary ex parte domestic violence protective order (DVPO) was granted. At the return hearing, the trial court granted the DVPO against Defendant. Defendant argued that he had a reason to cut the grass, as he thought the long grass was dangerous and sought to protect the children and their best interests. Defendant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Re TB, 2022-NCSC-43.

Facts: In January of 2019, Mecklenburg County DSS filed a petition alleging that the minor child in this action was neglected and dependent. They later moved her to foster care. The petition was initiated when police reported a domestic violence incident in the child’s home in early January, in which the father was arrested. When DSS spoke to Father and Mother after the incident, and both admitted to smoking marijuana, Father acknowledged he had mental health needs and that he had been in treatment for domestic violence through NOVA in the past. Mother said that she would have left Father if she had more family support. Father said he was willing to leave the family home. Father then agreed to go to Monarch for mental health assessment, and both parents agreed to submit to random drug screening. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Hitchcock v. Rupert, 2022-NCCOA-268 (2022) (unpublished).

In North Carolina, domestic violence falls under Chapter 50B of the General Statutes. It serves to protect a party who is or was in a relationship with the perpetrator. Harassment can rise to a level where a domestic violence order of protection is proper. Below is an example of conduct that rises to that level. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Samantha S. Erks, JD

Same-sex dating relationships are just like opposite-sex relationships in many respects: meeting, dating, and, hopefully, moving on to something deeper. Sometimes, however, just like in opposite sex relationships, same-sex relationships eventually do not work out. And sometimes, same-sex relationships REALLY do not work out and, just like in opposite sex relationships, things can get scary. When that happens, when someone is threatening or stalking their ex, one would hope that an LGBTQ victim would be able to rely on the courts to protect them through a domestic violence protective order in the same way that a straight victim could. Until this year, however, that was not the case. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Walker-Snyder v. Snyder, 2022-NCCOA-97 (2022)

In North Carolina, domestic violence is not always caused by a physical act. Under the 50B statutes, actions that meet the definition of stalking can also result in the granting of a domestic violence protective order, even though the court must find that an “act” of domestic violence has occurred. Below is such a case, where it was not a physical altercation but rather words that resulted in a trial on domestic violence. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In North Carolina, people who are in a personal relationship can apply for a protective order under chapter 50B of the statutes called domestic violence protective orders. This amounts to an Order of the court that directs the defendant to refrain from certain acts, excludes them from physical locations such as a residence, and awards temporary custody of minor children to the nonoffending party. However, the 50B actions are only applicable to parties that are in a personal relationship, meaning spouses and former spouses, dating partners, current and former household members, parents, and a few other categories. The common thread is that there is personal and private history between the parties. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic can add another disturbing statistic: domestic violence incidents have increased in North Carolina. Isolation and lockdowns likely have exacerbated conditions that may have been already present in a rocky relationship. Financial woes and job loss have only increased the stress. For some, these circumstances amounted to the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Doyle v. Doyle, 176 N.C. App. 547 (2006)

Sometimes, what kicks off a divorce is not a slow descent into a frustrating marriage, but instead a jarring and violent incident that cannot be reconciled. Domestic Violence Protective Orders (DVPO) can be granted to spouses that fear for their or their minor children’s safety. A DVPO plays a major role in a divorce case that includes claims for child custody. In North Carolina, our laws require that judges in child custody proceedings consider acts of domestic violence and safety of the child when making determinations. Is it fair for a judge in custody to allow new arguments for a settled case? Below, we discuss the implications of such a DVPO on child support through the lens of a legal doctrine called collateral estoppel.

(a) Facts: Plaintiff husband and Defendant wife married in 2001 and had one child together. They separated in 2003 and a complaint for child custody and support was filed in 2004. During this period, the parties alternated custody of the minor child on their own accord. On one such exchange, Plaintiff was at Defendant’s home to pick up the child when Defendant tried to prevent them leaving by trying to remove the child from Plaintiff’s arms. Defendant struck Plaintiff’s groin, and Plaintiff responded with his own use of force. Police were called and Defendant filed for a DVPO. Plaintiff filed a counterclaim for the same. Temporary custody was awarded to Defendant. In the DVPO hearing, the trial court Judge Mull found that Defendant had initiated the altercation, thus dismissing Defendant’s complaint and granting Plaintiff’s. In 2004, a hearing was conducted for the issues of child custody and support. At that hearing, trial court Judge Sigmon disagreed with Judge Mull, and ordered Defendant have primary physical custody. Plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents courts from entering findings of facts or conclusions of law contrary to previous litigation. The issues must be the same. The issue must be raised and litigated. The issues must be material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action, and determination of the issues must be necessary and essential to the resulting judgment. Read on to see what happens when the trial court enters an order contrary to the previous findings of facts and the conclusions of law. Continue reading →