Comer v. Comer
| Decision Date | 15 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8225DC318,8225DC318 |
| Citation | 300 S.E.2d 457,61 N.C.App. 324 |
| Parties | Altia Lou COMER v. Thomas COMER. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Wilson, Palmer & Cannon by Bruce L. Cannon, Lenoir, for plaintiff.
William W. Respess, Jr., Lenoir, for defendant.
This appeal raises the sole issue of whether the trial judge erred in granting custody of plaintiff's minor child to the child's paternal aunt and uncle upon the death of the child's father. Appellant argues that the custody rights of the biological mother should control and the wishes of the eleven year, eleven month old child should not govern.
G.S. 50-13.2(a) sets the standard for awarding custody of a minor child as follows:
An order for custody of a minor child entered pursuant to this section shall award the custody of such child to such person, agency, organization or institution as will, in the opinion of the judge, best promote the interest and welfare of the child. An order awarding custody must contain findings of fact which support the determination by the judge of the best interest of the child.
Brooks v. Brooks, 12 N.C.App. 626, 184 S.E.2d 417 (1971) stated that:
The guiding principle to be used by the court in a custody hearing is the welfare of the child or children involved. While this guiding principle is clear, decision in particular cases is often difficult and necessarily a wide discretion is vested in the trial judge. He has the opportunity to see the parties in person and to hear the witnesses, and his decision ought not to be upset on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
Id. at 630, 184 S.E.2d at 420.
Where one parent is dead, the surviving parent has a natural and legal right to custody and control of their minor children. This right is not absolute, but it may be interfered with or denied "only for the most substantial and sufficient reasons, and is subject to judicial control only when the interests and welfare of the children clearly require it." James v. Pretlow, 242 N.C. 102, 104, 86 S.E.2d 759, 761 (1955).
The Supreme Court has dealt with the traditional preference for biological parents thus [T]he welfare of the child is the paramount consideration to which all other factors, including common-law preferential rights of the parents must be deferred or subordinated ...
Griffith v. Griffith, 240 N.C. 271, 278, 81 S.E.2d 918, 923 (1954).
Furthermore, our court has held that the trial judge's discretion is such that he is "not required to find a natural parent unfit for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Wade
...Nonparent for Custody of Child Who Has Been Residing with Nonparent— Modern Status, 15 A.L.R.5TH 692 (1993). 59. See Comer v. Comer, 61 N.C.App. 324, 300 S.E.2d 457 (1983). 60. See In re Brandon L.E., 183 W.Va. 113, 394 S.E.2d 515 (1990). 61. See Triplett, 234 Ga. at 244, 215 S.E.2d 247 (co......
-
Best v. Best
...(1984). We note that it is not necessary for the natural parent to be found unfit for the presumption to be overcome. Comer v. Comer, 61 N.C.App. 324, 300 S.E.2d 457 (1983). In its August 1984 order, the court made specific findings that mother knowingly allowed an unfit man access to the c......
-
Dodge v. Dodge
...of the child clearly require alternative custodial supervision. Oehler, 282 S.C. at 28, 317 S.E.2d at 447 (citing Comer v. Comer, 61 N.C.App. 324, 300 S.E.2d 457 (1983)). In Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 386 S.E.2d 456 (1989), a father who had relinquished his son to a third party during dif......
- Bowles v. CTS of Asheville, Inc.