Matter of Custody of Rooker

258 S.E.2d 828, 43 N.C. App. 397, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3070
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 16, 1979
Docket799DC121
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 S.E.2d 828 (Matter of Custody of Rooker) 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
Matter of Custody of Rooker, 258 S.E.2d 828, 43 N.C. App. 397, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3070 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

HILL, Judge.

“A final decree of adoption for life terminates the relationship between the natural parents and the child, and the natural parents are divested of all rights with respect to the child.” (Emphasis added.) G.S. 48-23. Rhodes v. Henderson, 14 N.C. App. 404, 188 S.E. 2d 565 (1972).

Hence, the position of the petitioner is no greater than that of a stranger to the child. Rhodes v. Henderson, supra.

What right does a stranger have under the provisions of G.S. 50-13.1? This statute states substantially as follows:

Any parent, relative, or other person, . . . claiming the right to custody of a minor child may institute an action or proceeding for the custody of a minor child as herein provided. (Emphasis added.)

The determining factor under North Carolina decisions as to the proper custody of minor children is not that of claim of entitlement by the parties but the welfare of the child. Mathews v. Mathews, 24 N.C. App. 551, 211 S.E. 2d 513 (1975). In this case, the children are not living with the original adopting parents (the grandparents), but are living with another person, a stranger in effect. By signing consent to the adoption by the grandparents, the petitioner was rendered a stranger to the blood, but this in no way precludes his right as an “other person” to claim custody.

This is a matter for the lower court to decide based on all the evidence before the court at that time. Therefore, the judgment entered by the court below is vacated and the case is

Remanded.

Judges VAUGHN and Erwin concur.

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

Related

Dm v. Dr
62 So. 3d 920 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2011)
Ray v. Ray
407 S.E.2d 592 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 S.E.2d 828, 43 N.C. App. 397, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-custody-of-rooker-ncctapp-1979.