DiMatteo, Matter of
| Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 822DC781,822DC781 |
| Citation | 62 N.C.App. 571,303 S.E.2d 84 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of John DiMATTEO, III. |
Franklin B. Johnston, Washington, for respondent-appellant.
G.S. 50-13.2(a) provides:
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.
The rule in these cases in North Carolina is that the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the court's decision must be governed. 3 R. Lee, N.C. Family Law, Sec. 224 (4th ed. 1981); e.g., Green v. Green, 54 N.C.App. 571, 572, 284 S.E.2d 171, 173 (1981).
The respondent attacks the order on the basis of the trial judge's statement that:
[I]t is not a question of whether these two children have been cared for in the best possible manner since October of 1981, and it's not even a question as to whether or not the present foster care arrangement might be better than the custody of the father. The evidence is that the father's home is fit and proper. He is the proper person. That being the case, isn't he, as a matter of law, entitled to custody of this child?
Although this statement expressed the principle that the natural parent of a child is presumed to be the appropriate custodian of that child, In re Kowalzek, 37 N.C.App. 364, 367, 246 S.E.2d 45, 47, disc. rev. denied, 295 N.C. 734, 248 S.E.2d 863 (1978), the trial judge's statement reflected a misapprehension of the law. We cannot affirm an order without a clear indication that it rested on a determination of what would be in John's best interest. That is the paramount consideration in custody cases.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemley v. Barr
...360 Mass. at 89, 271 N.E.2d at 625. See also In Re Baby Boy Reyna, 55 Cal.App.3d 288, 126 Cal.Rptr. 138 (1976) and In Re DiMatteo, 62 N.C.App. 571, 303 S.E.2d 84 (1983). In the case now before us the circuit court, upon remand, is entitled to appoint at state expense an impartial expert to ......
-
Benedict v. Coe
...is the paramount consideration in determining the custody and visitation rights. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 50-13.2 (1987); In re DiMatteo, 62 N.C.App. 571, 303 S.E.2d 84 (1983). However, trial court judges have broad discretion to determine what is in the best interest of the child in custody and vis......
-
West Virginia Dept. of Human Services v. La Rea Ann C.L.
...parents should be taken into consideration, the trial court made no finding on the best interests of the child. In In Re DiMatteo, 62 N.C.App. 571, 303 S.E.2d 84 (1983), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina refused to uphold the trial court's decision to return a child to the home of his ......
-
McRoy v. Hodges
...In custody matters, the best interests of the child is the polar star by which the court must be guided. See In re DiMatteo, 62 N.C.App. 571, 572, 303 S.E.2d 84, 85 (1983). Although the trial judge is granted wide discretion, a judgment awarding permanent custody must contain findings of fa......