NC COA: Termination of Parental Rights, In re D.A.Y.

By Jessica B. Heffner

Termination of Parental Rights, COA18-1226, In re D.A.Y., June 18, 2019, Stanly County

Petitioner-Father, a resident of Stanly County, North Carolina, filed a termination of parental rights action in Stanly County against Respondent-Mother, a resident of Ventura County, California.  Petitioner alleged the parties’ child lived with him in Stanly County, pursuant to a California custody order, such that North Carolina is the “home state” of the child.  Petition further alleged that said California custody order terminated California’s ongoing jurisdiction by its own terms.  Petitioner alleged that though Respondent is currently a California resident (as she was when the California custody order was entered), she temporarily relocated to Nevada which also terminated California’s jurisdiction.  The trial court in Stanly County entered an order which terminated Respondent’s parental rights.  Respondent appealed arguing the North Carolina court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to enter its order.  The Court of Appeals agreed.

Read more

NC COA: Sfreddo v. Hicks

By Tony Kehoe

Requirements for Notary Certificate and Acknowledgment; Timeliness of Appeal of Summary Judgment Order from Converted Motion to Dismiss Hearing, COA18-1010, Sfreddo v. Hicks, June 18, 2019, Wake County

Wife filed an action against Husband for breach of contract (a separation agreement).   Husband moved to dismiss alleging the separation agreement was void because it was not properly acknowledged under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1. Husband specifically alleged the wording of the notary certificate did not have the proper language regarding the notary’s knowledge of the identity of the principal nor did it indicate that the notary acknowledged the signature was that of the principal.

Read more

Court Decision Highlights Importance of ADA ‘Interactive Process’

By Zachary Anstett

In an order filed July 18, U.S. District Court Judge Louise Flanagan of the Eastern District of North Carolina refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to make reasonable accommodations. Judge Flanagan’s decision in Murphy v. County of New Hanover illustrates how important it is for employers to engage in the “interactive process” under the ADA and to continue with that process even if the first attempt at accommodation is unsuccessful.

Allegations

According to his lawsuit, Mr. Murphy was hired as a social worker in the foster care unit at the New Hanover County Department of Social Services in 2016, with the primary function of reunifying families. Mr. Murphy had Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, which made it difficult for him to focus, concentrate, communicate, and work with others. Mr. Murphy alleged that he had no problem performing his “reunification” duties but that his ADHD made it difficult for him to complete his required paperwork unless he was in a setting without distractions.

Read more