subject: North Carolina Divorce Action Child Custody Award Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] KIM JOHN SCHROCK vKIM JOHN SCHROCK v. MARSHA LEE SCHROCK
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
February 2, 1988, Heard in the Court of Appeals
March 15, 1988, Filed
Plaintiff and defendant were married on 19 August 1978. Thereafter, they moved to North Carolina where plaintiff was stationed in the army. On 20 January 1981, the parties had their only child of the marriage, Brian Lee Schrock. The parties separated in June 1985. Subsequently, defendant took Brian to Michigan, where she filed an action for divorce which was dismissed for failure to meet the necessary residency requirement. Four months after defendant had taken the child to Michigan, plaintiff went there to return Brian to North Carolina. Defendant filed a second action for divorce and custody in Michigan. Subsequently plaintiff filed a child custody action in North Carolina. A final judgment was entered in Michigan awarding legal custody of the child to the mother. The North Carolina court declined to give full faith and credit to the Michigan custody award and granted custody to plaintiff. From the judgment of the trial court, defendant appealed.
Issues:
Whether the Michigan court had jurisdiction in this case?
Whether Michigan was the child's "home state," under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act?
Whether the trial court had abused its discretion in awarding custody to the father?
Discussion:
The trial court properly declined to give full faith and credit to a Michigan custody award, though the Michigan petition was filed before the North Carolina action was commenced, since Michigan was not the home state of the child, and it appeared that North Carolina would have jurisdiction pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. The court found that Michigan was not the child's "home state," under the PKPA, because he was not in Michigan for six months before the mother filed her petition. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the father. The trial court determined that it was best for the child to remain in the state where an effective child care plan had been established for the child and where the child was accustomed to the environment. Both of the parties were judged to be fit parents. The trial court determined, however, that it was best for Brian to remain with his father in North Carolina where the father had established an effective child care plan for his son in an environment that Brian was accustomed to and in which he had spent most of his life.
Conclusion:
Hence, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which awarded custody of the couple's child to the father and which denied to afford full faith and credit to the mother's Michigan custody decree.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
North Carolina Divorce Action Child Custody Award Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
