“If one wishes to know how justice is administered, one does not question the policemen, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected— those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! — and listens to their testimony. ~James Baldwin, “No Name on the Street”
The Justice Gap
Civil access to justice is high stakes. It is a prerequisite for meeting fundamental human needs. Without access to justice, individuals are incapable of contesting injustice or holding decision-makers accountable. Access routinely determines whether basic human needs for food, clothing, and shelter will be met, and it can mean everything for a person in crisis. Sadly, when individuals realize they need legal help, they also realize they cannot afford a lawyer. More often than not, they are also ineligible for assistance from legal aid. The difference between the civil legal needs of lower-income Americans and the resources available to meet those needs is what we refer to as the “Access to Justice Gap.” Read more
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-10-14 11:22:552022-10-14 11:22:55Looking Beyond Lawyers to Close the Access to Justice Gap
Let’s face it, being a lawyer is hard. Being a family lawyer is even harder. We all know that lawyers get a bad rap . . . What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? . . . A good start! Family lawyers get an even worse rap . . . our clients blame us for their moral lapses (no, I did not tell you to sleep with your neighbor when I said you could go on vacation) and our opposing parties call us the devil incarnate and file lawsuits against us. Read more
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-09-09 09:25:372022-09-09 09:25:37Sleeping With the Fishes
Are you looking to broaden your knowledge of family law?
Are you in need of CLE hours?
Have you missed the excitement of attending a fun-filled, in-person CLE with your favorite family law colleagues?
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you’re in luck – registration for the 2022 Family Law Fall CLE Program is happening now! Here’s what you have to look forward to (in addition to seeing all of your favorite family law friends):
Assumptions and Presumptions and Suppositions, Oh My! 2022 Family Law Fall Program
September 9, 2022 – Hilton Charlotte Uptown Hotel
We encounter assumptions, presumptions, and suppositions nearly every day in the practice of family law. Some of these are set out in statutes, some are derived from case law, and some come from local practice or personal experience. Read more
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-08-10 10:15:402022-08-10 10:15:40Hot Ticket Alert – 2022 Family Law Fall CLE Program
Thanks for reading this post and for allowing me to be your Chair this year. Don’t sit on me too hard, please! Our esteemed and more likeable Vice Chair is Jill Jackson.
If you’d rather not go through this entire post, there is a tl;dr version at the bottom.
After reading this post, ask yourself:
“What’s stopping me from contributing to the success of our section?”
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-08-02 11:02:312022-10-24 12:50:162022 is not "2020, Too"
Barus v. Coffey, January 4, 2022, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, Rule 12(b)(6) and custody modification
The trial court entered a permanent order in 2014 that awarded primary custody to father during the school year and shared custody during the summer months. This order also determined that each party should be financially responsible for the children while in his or her respective care and that the parties should bear equal responsibility for uninsured medical expenses, but that neither would pay support to the other. In 2017, father filed a motion to modify custody, medical coverage, and child support. The trial court heard the 2017 motions in 2018. In May 2019, the court entered its order regarding modification of custody, contempt, and attorney fees. Although the 2019 order in its caption did not mention child support, the body of the order itself indicated that the trial court was also addressing father’s motion to modify child support and in the decree of that order, the trial court denied the motions to modify the 2014 order in any way.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-02-22 10:26:182022-02-22 10:54:15Case Law Update: Barus v. Coffey (Failure to State a Claim, Child Support)
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, December 21, 2021 (Security For Child Support, Alimony)
The trial court entered a child support and alimony order. The order established a $1,900.00 a month, 20-year term alimony obligation; a prospective monthly child support obligation; and an $18,026.75 child support arrearage. The court ordered husband to maintain a life insurance policy with a $550,000.00 death benefit – the purpose being to secure the $18,026.75 child support arrearage and the $456,000.00 in alimony that would be paid over the total alimony term. Husband appealed.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-02-09 09:23:532022-02-09 09:23:53Wadsworth v. Wadsworth (Security For Child Support, Alimony)
Hirschler v. Hirschler, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, December 21, 2021 (Civil and Criminal Contempt)
A custody order granted primary custody to mother and visitation to father, including visitation from June 1 through July 10 each year in Florida. When the parties’ daughter was 16, she informed her parents that she did not want to return to mother at the end of father’s summer visitation period. Father encouraged the child to return but would not forcibly put the child in the car and drive her back to Charlotte. Mother traveled to Florida to talk with the child about coming home. After that discussion, mother acquiesced to the child’s request that she continue to stay in Florida with father. Mother later changed her mind and filed a criminal contempt motion against father. The allegations in her motion spoke only to criminal contempt and in her prayer for relief she asked only for criminal contempt. A show cause order was entered, directing father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. At the start of the contempt hearing, attorneys for both sides confirmed with the judge that this was to be a criminal contempt hearing and that mother was seeking only criminal contempt. Father exercised his right not to testify in the criminal contempt proceeding.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-02-03 15:01:392022-02-08 09:05:47Case Law Update: Hirschler v. Hirschler (Civil and Criminal Contempt)
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2022-01-26 10:42:402022-01-26 12:32:08Divorce From Bed and Board: Multiple Choice
By Alicia Mitchell-Mercer and S.M. Kernodle-Hodges 
By 
By 
By