Rothman v. Rothman

Decision Date22 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. 6912DC469,6912DC469
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesJoyce Mann ROTHMAN v. Jacob ROTHMAN. Jacob ROTHMAN v. Joyce Mann ROTHMAN, Israel Mann and Ruth Mann.

Moses & Diehl, by Philip A. Diehl, Raeford, for plaintiff appellee.

Bryant, Lipton, Bryant & Battle, by James B. Maxwell, Durham, and Minor, Thompson, Savage & Smithers, by Joseph B. Beneditti, Richmond, Va., for defendant appellant.

MORRIS, Judge.

This is an alimony and child custody proceeding which raises questions of conflicts of laws. Defendant presents four assignments of error. The first is directed to the refusal of the court to grant full faith and credit to the Virginia decree, the second is directed to the refusal of the court to dismiss the action under the doctrine of Res judicata, the third is to the court's receiving evidence at the hearing and to the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the fourth is to the signing of the order. We will consider these assignments of error collectively.

The cases are legion on the point that the primary consideration in custody cases is the welfare of the child or children involved. In is well established in North Carolina that a change in circumstances must be shown before an order relating to custody, support or alimony may be modified. Shepherd v. Shepherd, 273 N.C. 71, 159 S.E.2d 357 (1968); In Re Marlowe, 268 N.C. 197, 150 S.E.2d 204 (1966); Elmore v. Elmore, 4 N.C.App. 192, 166 S.E.2d 506 (1969) and statutes, texts and cases there cited. G.S. § 50--13.7, cited in Elmore, entitled 'Modification of order for child support or custody' states:

'(b) When an order for custody or support, or both, of a minor child has been entered by a court of another state, a court of this State may, upon gaining jurisdiction, and upon a showing of changed circumstances, enter a new order for support or custody which modifies or supersedes such order for custody or support.'

The facts of this case dictate that this statute must be applied and that in order for the Hoke County District Court to modify the Virginia decree, that court must gain jurisdiction and a change of circumstances must be shown.

By virtue of the physical presence of the child within the boundaries of this State, the Hoke County District Court has jurisdiction, upon a proper showing, to modify the Virginia decree as it pertains to the custody of the child. G.S. § 50--13.5(c)(2), par. a. It is apparent from the record that plaintiff neither alleges nor proves any change of circumstance which would justify the Hoke County District Court in modifying the Virginia decree as it did by awarding custody of the minor child to plaintiff. Plaintiff cites in her brief In Re Craigo, 266 N.C. 92, 145 S.E.2d 376 (1965), and Cleeland v. Cleeland, 249 N.C. 16, 105 S.E.2d 114 (1958), on the point that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, does not conclusively bind the North Carolina courts to give greater effect to a decree of another state than it has in that state or to treat as final and conclusive an order of a sister state which is interlocutory in nature. We agree. However, these cases are applicable only in determining that the courts of North Carolina may hear matters in a custody proceeding. There must still be a showing of changed circumstances before our courts may modify the order of a sister state, a fact which plaintiff admits in her brief.

Section 20--108, Code of Virginia (1950), provides:

'The court may, from time to time after decreeing as provided in the preceding section (power to confer custody), on petition of either of the parents, or on its own motion or upon petition of any probation officer or superintendent of public welfare, which petition shall set forth the reasons for the relief sought,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Pulliam v. Smith
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 1998
    ...In appropriate cases, either may support a modification of custody on the ground of a change in circumstances. In Rothman v. Rothman, 6 N.C.App. 401, 170 S.E.2d 140 (1969), the Court of Appeals wrote, "Professor Lee points out in his treatise on North Carolina Family Law that there must gen......
  • Best v. Best
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 17 Junio 1986
    ...findings of fact that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children. Rothman v. Rothman, 6 N.C.App. 401, 170 S.E.2d 140 (1969). The court's findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence even if there is evidence contra or incompetent......
  • MacLagan v. Klein
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1996
    ...so changed that the welfare of the child will be adversely affected unless the custody provision is modified." Rothman v. Rothman, 6 N.C.App. 401, 406, 170 S.E.2d 140, 144 (1969). "[T]he party moving for such modification has the burden of showing such change of circumstances." Tucker v. Tu......
  • Ramirez-Barker v. Barker
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 Julio 1992
    ...will not support a change in custody. Wehlau, 75 N.C.App. at 599, 331 S.E.2d at 225. provision is modified." Rothman v. Rothman, 6 N.C.App. 401, 406, 170 S.E.2d 140, 144 (1969); Pritchard v. [107 N.C.App. 78] Pritchard, 45 N.C.App. 189, 195, 262 S.E.2d 836, 839 (1980); Wehlau v. Witek, 75 N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT