Holmes v. Sanders, 532
| Decision Date | 01 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 532,532 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 683,246 N.C. 200 |
| Parties | Seaborne HOLMES v. Bannie SANDERS and Martha Sanders. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
R. O. Everett, Robinson O. Everett and Kathrine R. Everett, Durham, for plaintiff, appellant.
Wellons & Wellons, Smithfield, for defendants, appellees.
There is plenary competent evidence to support Judge Bickett's findings of fact, and his findings of fact support his judgment. The findings of fact by Judge Williams and Judge Bickett clearly show there are substantial reasons to deprive petitioner of the custody of his child. Judge Bickett's judgment is in accord with our decisions that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration, and that a parent's love must yield to another if, after judicial investigation, it is found that the best interest of the child is subserved thereby. James v. Pretlow, 242 N.C. 102, 86 S.E.2d 759; Finley v. Sapp, 238 N.C. 114, 76 S.E.2d 350; Atkinson v. Downing, 175 N.C. 244, 95 S.E. 487.
Petitioner contends Ransome Solomon Holmes' domicile is in Washington, D. C., and the court below lacked jurisdiction. The child has been living with his maternal grandparents in Johnston County, North Carolina, since the day before Thanksgiving 1954. Petitioner came into this State, and invoked the jurisdiction of our courts. The answer to petitioner's contention is given by Cardozo, J., speaking for the Court in Finlay v. Finlay, 240 N.Y. 429, 148 N.E. 624, 625, 40 A.L.R. 937, quoted with approval and followed by this Court in Richter v. Harmon, 243 N.C. 373, 90 S.E.2d 744, 748:
All of petitioner's assignments of error are overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Lynch
...v. Durham, 283 N.C. 671, 198 S.E.2d 537 (1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 918, 94 S.Ct. 1417, 39 L.Ed.2d 473 (1974); Holmes v. Sanders, 246 N.C. 200, 97 S.E.2d 683 (1957); Adams v. Bowens, 230 S.E.2d 481 (W.Va.1976). G.S. 50-13.5(c)(2) was amended by the 1979 Session Laws, effective 1 July 1979......
-
Cleeland v. Cleeland
...agency which will protect the child and promote its welfare. G.S. § 110-21; In re Gibbons, 247 N.C. 273, 101 S.E.2d 16; Holmes v. Sanders, 246 N.C. 200, 97 S.E.2d 683; Richter v. Harmon, 243 N.C. 373, 90 S.E.2d 744; Sheehy v. Sheehy, 88 N.H. 223, 186 A. 1, 107 A.L.R. 635; Eggleston v. Landr......
-
Adams v. Tessener
...yield to another'" to serve the child's best interests. Wilson, 269 N.C. at 677-78, 153 S.E.2d at 351 (quoting Holmes v. Sanders, 246 N.C. 200, 201, 97 S.E.2d 683, 684 (1957)). Nonetheless, parents normally love their children and desire not only what is best for them, but also a deep and m......
-
Hughes, In re
...by an agreement between the parents or by facts found in an action in another State where they had no right to be heard. Holmes v. Sanders, 246 N.C. 200, 97 S.E.2d 683; Weddington v. Weddington, 243 N.C. 702, 92 S.E.2d 71; Hoskins v. Currin, 242 N.C. 432, 88 S.E.2d 228; Gafford v. Phelps, 2......