Suppose mother files an action for custody when North Carolina is the home state of the child and mother and father both reside in North Carolina. Temporary orders are entered in the case and a couple of years go by without a permanent order being entered. When mom requests a trial date for entry of a permanent order, dad files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because mom, the child and dad all now reside in other states. No one resides in North Carolina. Should the case be dismissed?Continue Reading
More on Law Enforcement Involvement in Custody Cases
In my earlier blog post, Ordering Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce a Child Custody Order, Jan. 15, 2016, I discussed North Carolina case law indicating that a trial court’s authority to order law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of a child custody order is very limited. The General Assembly recently enacted legislation to clarify that the warrant provision in GS 50A-311 is a tool available to trial court judges seeking to enforce North Carolina custody orders as well as orders issued in other states and countries.Continue Reading
As I mentioned in an earlier post, parties to civil actions are responsible for paying their own attorneys’ fees unless a statute specifically permits fee shifting. In child custody actions, G.S. 50-13.6 allows a court to shift some or all of one party’s fees to the other party under certain circumstances. The statute provides that:
In an action or proceeding for the custody or support, or both, of a minor child, including a motion in the cause for the modification or revocation of an existing order for custody or support, or both, the court may in its discretion order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees to an interested party acting in good faith who has insufficient means to defray the expense of the suit.
If the grounds for entitlement are met, awarding the fee is still in the court’s discretion, as is the amount awarded. Our courts have made clear, however, that fee orders will be remanded if they do not include specific findings of fact as to both entitlement and reasonableness. I discuss the required findings below.
Policy. The purpose of the fee-shifting provision in 50-13.6 is not to act as sanction against the party ordered to pay the other’s fees. Instead, it is to help level the playing field for a party at a financial disadvantage in litigating custody of a child. As our Supreme Court has said, the statute helps make it possible for a party “to employ adequate counsel to enable [him or her], as litigant, to meet [the other party] in the suit.” Taylor v. Taylor, 343 N.C. 50 (1996). For this reason, fee eligibility does not depend on the outcome of the case. Fees are available even to a party who does not prevail, as long as he or she participated in good faith. Hausle v. Hausle, 226 N.C. App. 241 (2013). Continue Reading
*This post was updated on August 1, 2016 to reflect the Session Law for H424.
The 2016 Appropriations Act (S.L. 2016-94) addresses more than the State’s budget. Section 12.C makes substantive changes to the General Statutes in Chapter 7B that govern abuse, neglect, or dependency proceedings. The statutory amendments became effective on July 1st. In addition, S.L. 2016-115 (H424), creates a new criminal statute, “The Unlawful Transfer of Custody of a Minor Child,” and is effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2016. The law also amends the definition of a neglected juvenile in G.S. Chapter 7B. Continue Reading
Unlike other civil judgments, custody and support orders can be modified when there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the order was entered. This rule is codified in North Carolina at GS 50-13.7 and every state in the country has a similar statute.
While this authority is broad and straight forward, there are other statutory provisions that place significant limits on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction to modify a custody or support order – whether the order originally was entered in NC or in some other state or country. These statutory provisions were enacted for the purpose of discouraging parents from running from state to state in the hope of obtaining a more favorable court order.
The district court has exclusive, original jurisdiction over all abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) proceedings. When a court obtains that jurisdiction after an A/N/D petition has been filed by a county department of social services (DSS), “any other civil action in this State in which the custody of the juvenile is an issue is automatically stayed as to that issue, unless the juvenile proceeding and the civil custody action or claim are consolidated … or the court in the juvenile proceeding enters an order dissolving the stay.” G.S. 7B-200(c)(1).
What does this mean? Continue Reading
I hear this question frequently. Despite much effort, I have yet to find a case or a statute indicating that a custody order from another state must be registered before it can be enforced or modified. Of course, an action must be initiated to invoke the jurisdiction of our courts; something that can be done with a complaint, service of process and the normal rules of civil procedure. It is clear from UIFSA, Chapter 52C, that support orders from other states must be registered before a North Carolina court can enforce or modify the support order and UIFSA provides a clear statutory procedure for registration. There is no similar statutory requirement for child custody orders.