subject: North Carolina Alamance County Child Custody Jurisdiction Divorce UCCJA Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] In the Matter of the Custody of HABIB ARSHAD BHATTI, SAFFIYAH ARSHAD BHATTI, AHMAD ARSHAD BHATTI, and MAHBOOB ARSHAD BHATTI; ARSHAD BHATTI, Petitioner-Appellant v. KOKAB ARSHAD BHATTI a/k/a KOKAB SAID CHOUDHERY BHATTI, Respondent-Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
March 15, 1990, Heard in the Court of Appeals
May 15, 1990, Filed
The father and the mother initially lived in North Carolina, but then moved to Georgia. The Petitioner, father removed the children to North Caroline without the mother's permission or knowledge, and filed for custody of his four minor children in Caswell County. Respondent mother moved to dismiss the North Carolina custody action on the grounds that Georgia had previously assumed jurisdiction in this matter and that petitioner had abruptly removed the children from the marital residence in Georgia and that such conduct barred North Carolina from exercising jurisdiction. From the order dismissing petitioner's claim for relief and authorizing North Carolina law enforcement officers to take the children into protective custody for delivery to respondent, petitioner appealed.
Issues:
Whether the trial court erred in refusing Jurisdiction of North Carolina in child custody Issue?
Whether the trial court erred in authorizing law enforcement officers to pick up the children and deliver them to respondent in an effort to assist the Georgia court in enforcing its order?
1) Whether the trial court erred in refusing Jurisdiction of North Carolina in child custody Issue?
The Court finds that the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent in Alamance County, North Carolina on 18 December 1987, which was later dismissed by order of the court. On 28 December 1987 respondent filed suit in Georgia for divorce, temporary and permanent alimony, and temporary and permanent custody of the children. This action is still pending and respondent continues to live in Georgia. Based on this evidence it is clear that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction in this case. Georgia's exercise of jurisdiction meets the requirements of the UCCJA and the PKPA in that at the time child custody proceedings were begun by respondent, Georgia was the home state of the children and that Georgia had assumed jurisdiction. The trial court's order dismissing petitioner's action and enforcing the Georgia custody award was therefore proper.
2) Whether the trial court erred in authorizing law enforcement officers to pick up the children and deliver them to respondent in an effort to assist the Georgia court in enforcing its order?
The Court held that "While the UCCJA provides for assistance to courts of other states, it only does so in the manner provided for in G.S. 50A-20. While the trial court could resort to traditional contempt proceedings, we are unaware of any statutory basis for invoking the participation of law enforcement officers in producing the children. Accordingly, this portion of the trial court's order is vacated.
Conclusion:
Hence this court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's order that dismissed the father's petition against the mother in a child custody matter and directed local law enforcement officers to produce the children.
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 Alamance County Child Custody Jurisdiction Divorce UCCJA Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
