State ex rel. Department of Human Services ex rel. Jones v. Baggett

<bold>1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody —</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — home state</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by declining jurisdiction over this child custody matter and by concluding that Vermont was the home state of the children, because: (1) the minor children were not living in North Carolina for the required six months prior to the commencement of plaintiff mother's custody proceedings, and except for a six-week period in January and February 2002, the minor children lived continuously in Vermont from August 2001 to July 2002; (2) the totality of circumstances shows the six-week absence was merely a temporary absence, and in light of the numerous relocations and decisions, the parties' intent at the specific time they retrieved the minor children standing alone should not control the determination of whether the absence was temporary; (3) the length of absence from Vermont was a relatively short period of time, especially when compared to the fact that the minor children had spent almost the entire previous year in Vermont; and (4) Vermont's exercise of jurisdiction is proper under both North Carolina's UCCJEA provisions and Vermont's UCCJA provisions.</block_quote> <bold>2. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody — notice —</bold> <bold>substantial conformity</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a child custody case when it found that Vermont had issued its order in substantial conformity with the UCCJA and that plaintiff mother had notice and was aware of the pendency of the issue of jurisdiction before the Vermont court on 18 September 2002, because: (1) plaintiff conceded that the notice of hearing stated in all capital letters that both parties must appear and failure to appear meant it was possible for the court to issue parental rights and responsibilities based on the evidence presented by the other party; and (2) plaintiff responded to defendant's motion and specifically raised

This case involves a post-divorce action, in which the father filed a petition for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother failed to pay her portion of the child's medical expenses pursuant to the permanent parenting plan. The Trial Court denied the father's request that the mother be held in contempt but awarded the father a judgment for the mother's portion of the child's medical expenses. The Trial Court declined to award attorney's fees to the father and ordered that the mother be permitted to make installment payments to the father. We vacate the Trial Court's order permitting the installment payments as being premature. We further modify the judgment against Mother to $38,759.11 upon our determination that the amount paid by the father to Mountain Management and Denials Management was only $1,781.76. We affirm the Trial Court's judgment in all other aspects.

The district court must state its findings of fact with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. A court's findings of fact are sufficient if they afford a clear understanding of the court's decision and assist the appellate court in conducting its review. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the Court does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility. The district court did not clearly err in finding a parent did not change employment to reduce his child support obligation, but rather to parent his children.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS - divorce; de facto termination of marriage date; bankruptcy stay; marital residence; separate property; traceable; premarital loan; current market value; distribution of marital assets and marital debt; factual findings not supported by competent, credible evidence; joint tax returns; child support award; R.C. 3119.05.

This is a parental rights termination case. Nathaniel D. ("the Child") is the minor child of Haleigh D. ("Mother") and Richard L. ("Father"). Mother later married Zachary D. ("Stepfather"). Meanwhile, Father sought to be a part of the Child's life. In an agreed order of paternity, the Juvenile Court for Knox County ("the Juvenile Court") stated that "any and all issues related to Custody, visitation, and child support are reserved and referred to the Custody Magistrate." The issue of child support remained unaddressed. Ultimately, Mother and Stepfather ("Petitioners," collectively) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court") seeking to terminate Father's parental rights. The Trial Court terminated Father's parental rights on the sole ground of abandonment by failure to support. Father appeals. It is uncontested that Father failed to pay any support even though he had the means to do so. However, Father has successfully asserted and proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his failure to support was not willful. We reverse.