229 N.C. App. 494 - Davis v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pulliam v. Smith · Shipman v. Shipman · Mauney v. Mauney · Clark v. Clark · 65 N.C. App. 626 - Willoughby v. KENNETH W. WILKINS, MD, PA
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our Supreme Court has explained why it is essential for trial courts to include a specific finding of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child prior to modifying a custody order: A decree of custody is entitled to such stability as would end the vicious litigation so often accompanying such contests, unless it be found that some change of circumstances has occurred affecting the welfare of the child so as to require modification of the order. To hold otherwise would invite constant litigation by a dissatisfied party so as to keep the involved child constantly tom between parents and in a resulting state of turmoil and insecurity. This in itself would destroy the paramount aim of the court, that is, that the welfare of the child be promoted and subserved. Requiring this specific finding also ensures the modification is truly necessary to make a custody order conform to changed conditions when they occur. Finally, such findings are required in order for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court gave due regard to the factors expressly listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Conclusory statements regarding parental behavior and bare observations of plaintiff's or defendant's actions are by themselves insufficient to support the modification of an existing custody order. Instead, trial courts should pay particular attention in explaining whether any change in circumstances can be deemed substantial, whether that change affected the welfare of the minor child, and, finally, why modification is in the child's best interests. It is not sufficient that there may be evidence in the record sufficient to support findings that could have been made. The trial court is required to make specific findings of fact with respect to factors listed in the statute. Moreover, the trial court cannot, on the one hand, conclude there was not a substantial change of circumstances and, at the same time, change the existing order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the trial court did not conclude that there was a substantial change in circumstances, let alone that those changes affected the welfare of the children. Actually, the trial court found just the opposite as to defendant's motion and was silent as to plaintiff's motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.