Meredith Parker
Ryan Schultz
By Meredith Parker and Ryan Schultz
Introducing:
Isn’t There an Expert for That? (2022 Family Law Intensive Program)
Thursday and Friday, January 27-28, 2022
Attention all Family Law Specialists and Family Law Practitioners with 8+ years of practice! Your deadline to register for the 2022 Family Law Intensive Program is fast approaching – register today to secure your spot for the program.
By Ketan Soni
I took a hiatus from all the wrong laws. Two main reasons: I wanted to give you all a break from my rambling, and I was paralyzed in figuring out which of the many aspects of the wrong laws I was going to talk about next.
Trying to figure that out was like trying to reach the end of a Moebius strip.
Here are the previous blog posts:
In any event, all the divorce laws are still wrong. A few more people responded to my last post on Equitable Distribution, and I was mostly right. That’s 3-0 “ish.”
Ketan Soni
Carolyn Krueger-Andes
By Ketan Soni and Carolyn Krueger-Andes
We’re all busy all the time. Some of you have dreams of being special. Some of you have dreams of being a specialist. The hurdle to that dream is the nightmare of the specialist exam.
We are here to help you add bunny ears and fuzzy slippers to that nightmare so you can accomplish your specialist dreams! Also: If you don’t care about becoming a specialist, our hope is to raise our collective abilities as family lawyers with this ongoing series.
By Ryan Schultz
Mendez v. Mendez, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, December 21, 2021
Defendant sought a modification of child support, citing the changing needs of the children based on their involvement in new activities, including music lessons, fencing, and acting classes. Defendant also requested an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,300.00. The trial court order a reduction of child support, affirmed the trial courts ruling on extraordinary expenses and did not award defendant attorney fees.
Of course, defendant appealed and the court wrestled with the issues of potential errors of a) not imputing income to plaintiff, b) whether the children’s activities qualified as “extraordinary expenses” c) the lack of attorney’s fees to defendant.
While my last post focused on pregnancy support, this post focuses on what occurs when fathers fail to provide support, or at least fail to meet the court’s support definitions. Under prenatal abandonment theory, birth fathers lose “parental rights to newborn[s] by neglecting parental responsibilities during” pregnancy.[1] However, this theory can be more than a sword to terminate rights, but also a shield to protect rights via laws that 1) require fathers to “pay prenatal support or waive parental” rights and that 2) protect rights for fathers who provide such support.[2]
The financial and physical impacts of pregnancy disproportionately affect women, as biology makes it easier for men to evade their equal responsibility. However, laws that provide robust pregnancy support can make women and children more secure, while also ensuring more equitable pregnancy cost distributions. Regardless of whether pregnancy support is framed as prenatal child support or preglimony,[1] society benefits. This idea of support during pregnancy is within North Carolina statutes and case law, but the type of support and ability to receive support is limited and fails to provide for the full range of women or children’s needs.
By Ketan Soni
All the divorce laws are still wrong. Nothing has changed in the past 90 days. Only two people responded to my last post, and both basically said “Ketan, you are right.” I’m 2-0.
The softball issues are over. Remember, I’m trying to point out black holes in how things operate within our family law world.
After reading this next post, you can click here to send me your comments and change my mind.
Waly v. Alkamary, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, August 17, 2021 (UCCJEA)
Father filed a custody action in North Carolina in July 2016. Then, mother relocated to New Jersey and father relocated to Florida. In October 2016, the North Carolina court entered a temporary custody and child support order in which mother was granted primary custody. The temporary order included a finding that “the parties should consider that since neither currently resides in Cumberland County, North Carolina: Cumberland County, North Carolina is no longer the most convenient forum for custody litigation.” In April 2017, mother obtained a domestic violence protective order against father in New Jersey – this order prohibited father from having any communication with mother and appointed mother’s sister as the go-between for facilitating custody exchanges. Also in 2017, the parties filed custody-related motions in the North Carolina case and in December 2017, the North Carolina trial court entered a holiday visitation order which referenced the New Jersey DVPO.
Walter v. Walter, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, August 17, 2021 (Contempt)
The parties’ custody order provided, inter alia, that father would have “at least two non-consecutive weeks during each summer (school) vacation period of the minor children,” that father would give mother notice of his proposed summer time within five days of the time he made plans, that if father traveled out of town with the children he may need two consecutive weeks, and that mother would have summer vacation with the children “for at least one week during each summer (school) vacation period of the minor children.” In the summer of 2019, father exercised visitation with the children for two consecutive weeks to take them to Europe and then exercised another, separate week of visitation to take the children to Nebraska. Mother filed a contempt motion, alleging that father had violated the custody order by taking a third vacation week with the children. The trial court held father in contempt and father appealed.
Mucha v. Wagner, Supreme Court of North Carolina, August 13, 2021 (DVPO, personal jurisdiction over defendant)
Plaintiff and defendant were in a romantic relationship while plaintiff was in college in South Carolina and defendant lived in Connecticut. The relationship ended while plaintiff was still in South Carolina. Upon ending the relationship, plaintiff told defendant not to contact her again. Plaintiff then moved to North Carolina at the end of her college semester. On the day she moved, defendant attempted to contact plaintiff 28 times. Upon hearing a voice mail message, plaintiff suffered a panic attack. The next day, plaintiff filed a 50B action in North Carolina.
By