Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrial

appealtrialdivorce

Related Cases

Alexander v. Alexander, 276 N.C.App. 148, 2021-NCCOA-61, 856 S.E.2d 136

Facts

The child's father, Edward D. Alexander, moved to modify a joint custody agreement with the child's mother, Amy H. Alexander, after being diagnosed with cancer. During this time, the child lived with the paternal grandparents, Charles and Claria Alexander. After the father's death, the mother sought to terminate the grandparents' temporary visitation rights, but the trial court awarded her primary custody while granting the grandparents extensive visitation rights, leading to the mother's appeal.

In 2014, when the Child was five years of age, Mother and Father divorced. They entered a consent order (the “2014 Consent Order”) agreeing to joint custody.

Issue

Did the trial court have the authority to grant the grandparents visitation rights after the father's death, and was the visitation order unconstitutional as applied to the mother?

Mother argues that the trial court had no statutory authority to award Grandparents visitation rights once Father had died and she became the Child's sole parent.

Rule

Grandparents have statutory standing to seek visitation rights when custody is being litigated, but any visitation order must respect the custodial parent's rights and not interfere with the parent-child relationship.

Section 50-13.2(b1) provides that a trial court may include in a custody order terms 'provid[ing] visitation rights for any grandparent of the child as the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate.'

Analysis

The court determined that the trial court had statutory authority to grant visitation rights to the grandparents since they had intervened during an active custody dispute. However, it found that the trial court failed to give deference to the mother's determination regarding visitation, which is a constitutional right. The court emphasized that the visitation order must not interfere with the mother's rights as the sole custodial parent.

Applying the principles set forth in Troxel, we conclude that the 2018 Permanent Order is unconstitutional in two main ways.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the visitation provisions of the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need to respect the mother's rights in determining visitation.

We, therefore, vacate the visitation provisions in the 2018 Permanent Order.

Who won?

The mother prevailed in the appeal as the Court of Appeals vacated the visitation order in favor of her constitutional rights as the sole custodial parent.

The Court of Appeals, Dillon, J., held that: 1 grandparents had statutory standing to seek permanent visitation rights with child;

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Estate of Cammack, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2000 WL 1679492

Reliance Trust Co. v. Candler, 294 Ga. 15, 751 S.E.2d 47, 13 FCDR 3328

Bowes v. Cannon, 50 Colo. 262, 116 P. 336

Araiza v. Younkin, 188 Cal.App.4th 1120, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,640, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,225

Busch Bros. Elevator Co., Inc. v. Unit Bldg. Servs., 190 Ohio App.3d 413, 942 N.E.2d 404, 2010-Ohio-5320