North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Tagged with DVPO

Published on:

By

IN THE MATTER OF: E.Q.B., M.Q.B., S.R.R.B., 2023-NCCOA-______ (2023) 


Sometimes a parent will commit an act of domestic violence against the other parent or involving the child. In these cases, a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) can be entered to cut off contact between the offender and the parent/child. Subsequently, if the offender then faces a petition to terminate his/her parental rights, then that DVPO cannot be used as a shield to prevent the termination, so long as the grounds are factually established.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you are a victim of domestic violence in North Carolina, you may be able to file for a protective order. Domestic violence protective orders (DVPO; also called 50B orders) are court orders that prohibit an abuser from being near a victim. DVPOs provide a certain level of security if you are fearful that someone you have a close relationship with will try to harm you.

A DVPO can be filed during the divorce process as well, if one spouse harasses or threatens the other. A Greensboro divorce lawyer can help you obtain a domestic violence protective order. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many victims of domestic abuse who flee their abuser have to leave the state where the abuse occurred for a number of reasons. If you find yourself in this difficult situation and have moved to North Carolina, what does that mean for your ability to get a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO)? As it happens, it can make all the difference.

In North Carolina, courts can only hear claims for DVPOs if the plaintiff demonstrates that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.[1] Personal jurisdiction is the right of that particular court to make decisions and enter orders about that person. If a court is to have personal jurisdiction, the court must comply with two different tests: the North Carolina long-arm statute and the Constitutional right to due process. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Keenan v. Keenan, 2022-NCCOA-554, No. COA21-579 (Aug. 16, 2022)

In August 2020, Plaintiff’s ex-husband came to Plaintiff’s house to cut her grass. Seems innocent enough, right? But Defendant ex-husband had a history of physically, verbally, and emotionally abusing Plaintiff, had been texting Plaintiff inappropriate things, had been told multiple times not to come to Plaintiff’s house, and wouldn’t leave even though Plaintiff told him to four times. That context makes the situation seem very different, doesn’t it? Plaintiff got so nervous about what Defendant might do that it gave her a panic attack, and she filed for a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO). The DVPO was granted because the trial court found that Defendant placed “the aggrieved party or a member of [her] family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or continued harassment, as defined in [N.C.G.S. §] 14-277.3A, that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress.” (N.C.G.S. § 50B-1 (a)(2)) Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Plaintiff filed a complaint and motion for domestic violence protective order (DVPO) on March 12, 2021.  When using form AOC-CV-303, Plaintiff described no instances where Defendant either threatened to 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

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

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

As we proceed through the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, domestic violence incidents have increased in North Carolina. Isolation and lockdown likely have exacerbated conditions that may have already been present in a rocky relationship. Financial woes and job losses have only added to the stress. Domestic violence and violence against intimate partners have been on the rise. Here, we will briefly discuss how the Court can grant emergency relief for the victims of domestic violence. 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 →