Ratley v. Ratley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Ratley v. Ratley

392 S.E.2d 653, 99 N.C. App. 219, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 458

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 1990

DocketNo. 8916DC1172

StatusPublished

This text of 392 S.E.2d 653 (Ratley v. Ratley) 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

Ratley v. Ratley, 392 S.E.2d 653, 99 N.C. App. 219, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 458 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

By an order entered in October, 1986 Judge Gardner awarded custody of the twin children of the parties to plaintiff and allowed defendant extensive visitation rights. Defendant’s appeal is from Judge Floyd’s denial of his motion to modify the order by awarding him either sole or joint custody.

The appeal has no basis. Though it has long been established in this jurisdiction that a child custody order may not be modified [220]*220in the absence of a substantial change of circumstances which affect the welfare of the child involved, G.S. 50-13.7; Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E.2d 153 (1952); In re Means, 176 N.C. 307, 97 S.E. 39 (1918), defendant does not argue in his brief that any such change has occurred. He argues only that his sole or joint custody should have been ordered because the evidence indisputably shows that he is a “caring, loving and capable father.” The time for that argument, standing alone, passed long since. That defendant is a fit person to have sole or joint custody of the children, by itself, is no basis for modifying the order previously entered. Before the prior order can be modified it must be established that a substantial change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the children has occurred, Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977), and that has not been done.

Affirmed.

Judges ARNOLD and Cozort concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

By an order entered in October, 1986 Judge Gardner awarded custody of the twin children of the parties to plaintiff and allowed defendant extensive visitation rights. Defendant’s appeal is from Judge Floyd’s denial of his motion to modify the order by awarding him either sole or joint custody.

The appeal has no basis. Though it has long been established in this jurisdiction that a child custody order may not be modified [220]*220in the absence of a substantial change of circumstances which affect the welfare of the child involved, G.S. 50-13.7; Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E.2d 153 (1952); In re Means, 176 N.C. 307, 97 S.E. 39 (1918), defendant does not argue in his brief that any such change has occurred. He argues only that his sole or joint custody should have been ordered because the evidence indisputably shows that he is a “caring, loving and capable father.” The time for that argument, standing alone, passed long since. That defendant is a fit person to have sole or joint custody of the children, by itself, is no basis for modifying the order previously entered. Before the prior order can be modified it must be established that a substantial change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the children has occurred, Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977), and that has not been done.

Affirmed.

Judges ARNOLD and Cozort concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 S.E.2d 653, 99 N.C. App. 219, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratley-v-ratley-ncctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack