In Re the Custody of Burchette

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In Re the Custody of Burchette

165 S.E.2d 564, 3 N.C. App. 575, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1624

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1969

Docket6921SC1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 S.E.2d 564 (In Re the Custody of Burchette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Custody of Burchette, 165 S.E.2d 564, 3 N.C. App. 575, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1624 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Brock, J.

The order appealed from is dated 19 February 1968, and the record on appeal should have been docketed in this Court on or before 19 May -1968. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. However, in accordance with Rule 5, appellant, on 17 May 1968, obtained an order from the trial tribunal extending the time to 3 June 1968 within which the record on appeal might be docketed. Nevertheless, appellant did not docket the record on appeal in this Court until 31 July 1968, and for failure to docket on time this appeal is subject to dismissal. Rule 48, Rules of Practice, supra.

In addition to failure to docket on time, appellant has filed no brief and therefore the assignments of error are deemed to be abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice, supra. Pursuant to Rule 19(d)(2), appellant filed in this Court the stenographic transcript *578 of the hearing, but by failure to file a brief appellant has failed to comply with Rule 19(d) (2) with respect to an appendix to her brief and the appeal is further subject to dismissal. Rule 48, Rules of Practice, supra.

However, because the duty is constant upon the courts to give to children subject to their jurisdiction such oversight and control as will be conducive to the welfare of the child and to the best interests of the State, G.S. 110-21; In Re Morris, 225 N.C. 48, 33 S.E. 2d 243, we have reviewed the entire history of these children and the entire proceeding before Judge Johnston. In our opinion the order appealed from serves the best interests of the two minor children and serves the best interests of the State.

Appeal dismissed.

Campbell and MoRRis, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brock, J.

The order appealed from is dated 19 February 1968, and the record on appeal should have been docketed in this Court on or before 19 May -1968. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. However, in accordance with Rule 5, appellant, on 17 May 1968, obtained an order from the trial tribunal extending the time to 3 June 1968 within which the record on appeal might be docketed. Nevertheless, appellant did not docket the record on appeal in this Court until 31 July 1968, and for failure to docket on time this appeal is subject to dismissal. Rule 48, Rules of Practice, supra.

In addition to failure to docket on time, appellant has filed no brief and therefore the assignments of error are deemed to be abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice, supra. Pursuant to Rule 19(d)(2), appellant filed in this Court the stenographic transcript *578 of the hearing, but by failure to file a brief appellant has failed to comply with Rule 19(d) (2) with respect to an appendix to her brief and the appeal is further subject to dismissal. Rule 48, Rules of Practice, supra.

However, because the duty is constant upon the courts to give to children subject to their jurisdiction such oversight and control as will be conducive to the welfare of the child and to the best interests of the State, G.S. 110-21; In Re Morris, 225 N.C. 48, 33 S.E. 2d 243, we have reviewed the entire history of these children and the entire proceeding before Judge Johnston. In our opinion the order appealed from serves the best interests of the two minor children and serves the best interests of the State.

Appeal dismissed.

Campbell and MoRRis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E.2d 564, 3 N.C. App. 575, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-custody-of-burchette-ncctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack