Sodoma Law, P.C. News

Topics

• 2013 April March February January • 2012 December November October September August July June May April March February January • 2011 December November October September August July May April February January • 2010 October September August July June May April March February January • 2009 December October September August March February

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010, attorney Misty Hardison will continue her series of free seminars offered by Sodoma Law, P.C. to help educate you, or someone you know, about issues related to separation and divorce.  For more information, contact us at 704.442.0000 or email info@sodomalaw.com.   Space is limited so mark your calendars and join us on November 16, 2010. Look forward to seeing you soon.

Child Custody Orders may be modified based on a substantial change in circumstances which warrant a modification of the existing child custody order.  The substantial change of circumstances must affect the welfare of the minor child.  To many, this standard may seem vague and confusing.  A recent Court of Appeals case Patten v. Werner discusses the issue of modifying custody. Father filed a motion to modify a current custody order asking the Court to grant him primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child.   In this case, Father and Mother were divorced.  After the divorce, an order was entered granting Mother primary physical custody of the child with Father having liberal visitation.  Mother then remarried and her new spouse was the center of Father’s motion to modify custody.  Mother’s new husband had been arrested for driving while intoxicated and his license had been revoked; however, Mother continued to allow her new husband to drive with the child.  The child had allegedly witnessed domestic violence which led to the new husband being charged with assault.  Additionally, the child’s absences and tardy marks at school had increased. The key issue in cases of this nature is whether the facts and circumstances affect the welfare and well-being of the minor child.  The trial court found that due to Mother and new husband’s behavior and the home environment they had created, the child’s welfare and well-being had, in fact, been affected.  The trial court modified custody and awarded primary custody to Father.  The trial court considered the changes described above and how they affected the child and determined it was in the child’s best interest to modify custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to modify custody and award Father primary physical custody of the minor child.  The legal precedent established by cases such as Patten v. Werner is always subject to change due to action by the North Carolina General Assembly, decisions by a higher court, or legislative action taken by the Congress of the United States of America.  Therefore, it is always imperative to seek the advice of legal counsel that is apprised and familiar with the law as it relates to your case. DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEBSITE WAS PREPARED BY SODOMA LAW, P.C. AND IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT, IN ANY WAY, CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE.

In a recent Court of Appeals case, In re Adoption of K.A.R., the Court discusses the issue of when an unwed biological father’s consent is needed for adoption of a child. In this case, the Mother and Father were very young; 18 and 20, respectively.  Upon confirmation that Mother was in fact pregnant, both Father and Mother acknowledged that Father was the biological father. Father attended some prenatal doctor appointments with Mother until she asked him to stop attending with her. Approximately five months prior to the birth of the child, the Father got a job earning $8.00 dollars an hour and began purchasing supplies for the unborn child.  Father bought a crib mattress, a car seat and more than $200.00 in clothing.  Even though Mother rebuffed these attempts by Father to provide assistance and support, Father still independently bought items for the unborn child which were commensurate with his financial means and resources.  Additionally, Father made it clear throughout the pregnancy that he would not consent to an adoption.  Despite Father’s objections, four days after the child’s birth, Mother placed the child with an adoptive couple (Petitioners) who wanted to adopt the child.  The Petitioners filed a Petition for Adoption which indicated they did not believe the biological father’s consent was needed.  The trial court concluded that Father’s consent was needed for the adoption because he had provided reasonable support given his financial means prior to the filing of the Petition for Adoption.  In addition, the Court stated that despite Mother rebuffing Father’s efforts to provide direct support for the child, he still continued to communicate regularly with the Mother about the pregnancy and his opposition to the adoption.  The bright line statutory rule is that a father’s consent is needed for an adoption if he has provided reasonable support given his financial means prior to the filing of the Petition for Adoption.  The Petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision that the Father’s consent was necessary to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Father’s consent to the adoption was necessary. The legal precedent established by cases such as In re Adoption of K.A.R. is always subject to change due to action by the North Carolina General Assembly, decisions by a higher court, or legislative action taken by the Congress of the United States of America.  Therefore, it is always imperative to seek the advice of legal counsel that is apprised and familiar with the law as it relates to your case.   DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEBSITE WAS PREPARED BY SODOMA LAW, P.C. AND IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT, IN ANY WAY, CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE.