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.
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.pngFamilyLaw2022-01-04 11:56:422022-01-04 11:56:42The Limits on Pregnancy Support In North Carolina
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.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-11-10 09:21:202021-11-22 09:50:57Equitable Distribution: Laws are Still Wrong, Says Ketan
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.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-11-05 16:38:192021-11-05 16:44:10Case Law Update: Waly v. Alkamary (UCCJEA)
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.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-11-03 16:11:342021-11-03 16:19:38Case Law Update: Walter v. Walter (Contempt)
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.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-29 09:34:342021-10-29 12:09:34Case Law Update: Mucha v. Wagner (DVPO, Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant)
It’s National Celebrate Pro Bono Month! That’s right . . . you heard it here: it’s time to get your pro bono “on” if you haven’t already this year. Should every month be pro bono month? Absolutely! October is particularly great . . . why? Well, the leaves are changing, hot toddies by the campfire are in my future and everything you could ever imagine is pumpkin flavored. Get to the point, you say; I’m super important and don’t have time for your ramblings. OK, here you go!
Rule 6.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct states that “every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.” Across the state, there is a great need for family law specific pro bono services. As a member of North Carolina Bar Association, you can register to volunteer virtually by signing up for North Carolina Free Legal Answers which is a web-based pro bono program for financially eligible users to post civil legal questions. Attorneys can sort and filter questions with many of the questions being family/divorce/custody related. Questions generally take attorneys 5 minutes or so to respond. It is easy. You can find more information about the program here.
Angarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)
Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant 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.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-15 09:54:422021-10-15 09:54:42Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)
Nielson v. Schmoke, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Pursuant to a Michigan divorce judgment, entered in December 2003, and a supplemental judgment, entered in October 2009, husband was to pay to wife a total of $1,323,096.31. In 2013, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), wife enrolled the two Michigan judgments, along with supporting affidavits, and commenced an action in North Carolina. Husband filed a motion to strike and defenses to enforcement of the judgments. The trial court found wife had met the requirements of the UEFJA, found that the Michigan judgments were entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and entered a North Carolina judgment against husband in the amount of $1,323,096.31.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-13 10:56:152021-10-13 11:01:33Case Law Update: Nielson v. Schmoke (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
By Ryan Schultz
By 
By 
By