Classification: Marital/ Separate Property

Under North Carolina law, when parties get divorced the court must first classify property as marital or separate property. Marital property is valued and distributed between the parties. Marital property is defined as all property acquired during the marriage and prior to the date of separation, except property that is classified as separate property. Separate property is defined as all property acquired by a spouse before marriage or acquired by a spouse by bequest, devise, descent, or gift during the course of the marriage. Separate property remains the separate property of the spouse who received the property.

Special Rule Regarding Real Estate

Under North Carolina law, real property acquired prior to the marriage or with separate funds which would ordinarily be the separate property of the spouse/ owner is presumed to be a gift to the marriage if the spouse titles the property as tenancy by the entireties. The presumption can be overcome, but it is the burden of the spouse claiming it was not a gift to show that he or she did not intend for it to be a gift to the marriage. The burden is very high to show that a gift was not his or her intent. Testimony alone is not enough. Additional evidence is required to overcome the presumption that a gift to the marriage was not intended when the owner spouse titled the property as tenancy by the entireties

Hidden Refinance Danger for Spouses

Very often when the owner/ spouse refinances the house, the mortgage company suggests or may insist that title be put in both spouses’ names. One of the reasons given is that the house can pass to the other spouse automatically in the event of the death of one of the spouses. However, the act of titling the house as tenancy by the entireties triggers the legal presumption that the owner spouse intended to gift his or her interest in the house to the marriage.

Active Efforts Create Marital Property

When there is an increase in value of the separate property and that increase is due to the efforts of the owner spouse (“active efforts”), then the increase in value should be classified as marital property and subject to distribution to the parties. With respect to real property, active efforts include payment on the mortgage with income earned during the marriage or increasing the value of the home through additional improvements paid for with income earned during the marriage or with sweat equity.

Analyzing the conditions surrounding the titling of property and the intent of the parties as well as analyzing efforts that are active such that they contribute to an increase in value of the property versus an increase in value from merely passive forces such as the economy are highly technical areas under the law. When parties are getting divorced, there are a number of strategic issues involved in analyzing the transferring intent and the “active/ passive” factors relative to the owner spouse. One of the most important things a spouse must do when faced with divorce is to retain counsel with experience in real property issues in marital dissolution cases to provide essential advice on protecting the rights and assets of the real property owner.

Contributor: Cathy C. Hunt: Cathy C. Hunt, Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a leading North Carolina Divorce Lawyer and is experienced in business valuation in cases of separation and divorce. She is a partner with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. For more information contact: North Carolina Family Law Firm, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201,Raleigh, NC 27604,Tel: 919-832-8488, www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case by a qualified family law attorney

Each year a substantial number of children are abducted by non-custodial parents, members of their family or others as a result of bitter custody proceedings or fears of sexual or physical abuse while the child is with the other parent. Multiple states, including North Carolina, now recognize a civil cause of action for abduction of a child. This cause of action or tort states that, a person who, with knowledge that the parent of a child does not consent, abducts or otherwise compels or induces a minor child to leave a parent legally entitled to its custody or not to return to the parent after it has left him or her, is subject to liability to the parent. There are cases extending the tort to interference with visitation rights.

The elements of the tort of Interference with Parental Rights are as follows.

1. A parent has a legally protected custodial interest in his or her minor child; and

2. The defendant abducts or removes the minor child from the parent’s custody, or, if the child left home voluntarily induces the child not to return without the parent’s consent and against his or her will; and

3. The plaintiff suffers damages for loss of the society of the child, for his or her emotional distress resulting from the abduction or enticement and reasonable expenses incurred in regaining custody of the child or treating any physical harm resulting to the child as a result of the abduction

This cause of action for abduction of a child was first recognized in North Carolina in the case of La Grenade v. Gordon, 46 N.C. App. 329, 264 S.E.2d 757, 758-59, a 1983 case in which the mother stated a cause of action against the father and paternal grandparents for abduction where she had the superior right to custody of the child. This cause of action has been recognized in many other states such as New York, Texas and Wisconsin. In Wisconsin the case was filed in federal court which held that where the mother and boyfriend abducted a two year old child from father in violation of Maryland custody order and conspired with grandparents to keep the child from the father, compensatory damages of $70,000 and punitive damages of $250,000 were awarded. Lloyd v. Loeffler, 694 F.2d 489, 495-96 (7th Cir. 1982)

Contributor: Carole S. Gailor - Carole S. Gailor, a Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a leading North Carolina Divorce Lawyer. She is a Board Certified Family Law Specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Ms. Gailor is a founding partner with North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488 or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case by a qualified family law attorney.

Of the many factors that affect the welfare of the child, one of the more interesting areas that the Court may consider is the “lifestyle of the parent.” The term lifestyle covers a wide range of topics, from adultery to substance abuse to career change to military service.

One of the topics included within the pertinent case law dealing with a parent’s lifestyle is homosexuality. The flagship case on this topic is Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 501 S.E.2d 898 (1998), which is a North Carolina Supreme Court decision from 1998. In Pulliam, the facts showed that the mother and father separated in 1990 when the mother went to live with her boyfriend in Wichita, Kansas. In 1991, pursuant to a consent order, the father was granted physical custody of the two minor children. At the time of the consent order, the two boys were six and three years old, respectively. In 1993, the mother married her boyfriend, Mr. Pulliam, in Kansas. In 1994, Tim Tipton, the father’s boyfriend, moved into the home with the father and the two minor children.

In 1995, based upon the father’s homosexual relationship, the mother filed a motion to modify custody. The trial court granted the motion and the father appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the grounds that a substantial change in circumstances had not occurred based on the evidence in the record. The mother appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered that the trial court’s ruling be reinstated. The Supreme Court found that the evidence showed that the father and his boyfriend would kiss and hold hands in front of the children, and shared the same bedroom while the children were in the house. The father and Tim Tipton also admitted to engaging in oral sex in the bedroom, but only with the door closed and never in front of the children. Furthermore, the Supreme Court cited the trial court’s finding that, “The activity of the Defendant will likely create emotional difficulties for the two minor children….That the active homosexuality of the Defendant and his involvement with Tim Tipton by bringing Tim Tipton in to the home of the two minor children is detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the two minor children.” Id. at 623, 902.

Justice John Webb wrote the dissent and claimed that the true reason behind the majority opinion was the fact that the father was gay. The majority responds to the dissent by stating, “We conclude that activities such as the regular commission of sexual acts in the home by unmarried people, failing and refusing to counsel the children against such conduct while acknowledging this conduct to them, allowing the children to see unmarried persons known by the children to be sexual partners in bed together, keeping admittedly improper sexual material in the home…support the trial court’s findings of ‘improper influences’ which are ‘detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the two minor children.’” Id. at 627, 904.

The Court went further to say, “Nor does this Court hold that the mere homosexual status of a parent is sufficient, taken alone, to support denying such parent custody of his or her child or children.”

Despite the Court’s assertion, it is clear from the ruling that leading an openly homosexual lifestyle can be fodder for the court in determining custody between two parents. Those in the gay and lesbian community did not see Pulliam as a step forward in the rights of homosexuals, and many commentators believe that the Court of Appeals wrote the correct opinion. Many in the legal community feel that if the same set of facts had been applied to a heterosexual couple, then the outcome would have been dramatically different.

If you find yourself questioning your spouse’s lifestyle choices, or find that your own lifestyle is being questioned, it may be necessary to meet with a family law attorney in your area to understand the implications it may have on the custody of your child. The family law offices of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC in Raleigh, North Carolina are openly accepting of all clients, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Contributor: Rebecca F. Redwine. Rebecca Redwine is a Raleigh Family Law Attorney with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488, or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

Often when people are married one of the spouses has an ownership interest in a family business that was gifted to him or her by a parent or other family member. When a divorce occurs, the court must determine whether the business interest is marital property subject to distribution with the house, retirement and other marital property or whether it is the separate property of the owner-spouse and not subject to distribution.

Under North Carolina law, when parties get divorced the court must first classify property as marital or separate property. Marital property is valued and distributed between the parties. Marital property is defined as all property acquired during the marriage and prior to the date of separation, except property that is classified as separate property. Separate property is defined as all property acquired by a spouse before marriage or acquired by a spouse by bequest, devise, descent, or gift during the course of the marriage. Separate property remains the separate property of the spouse who received the property. However, if during the marriage there is an increase in value of the separate property and that increase is due to the efforts of the owner spouse (“active efforts”), then the increase in value will be classified as marital property and subject to distribution to the parties.

For example, if during the marriage the husband received shares of stock in the family business from his father, that ownership interest in the business is the husband’s separate property, and the wife is not entitled to any of the husband’s interest in the business. However, if during the marriage the husband also worked in the business and his active efforts during the marriage contributed to an increase in value of the business, that increase in value that can be attributed to the husband’s efforts should be classified as marital property and included in the marital estate for distribution. In the alternative, if the husband worked in the business during the marriage but his role was not one that had any impact on the value of the business, then any increase in value should remain the separate property of the husband and not be subject to distribution with the remainder of the marital estate.

Determining efforts that are active such that they contribute to an increase in value of the business and determining an increase in value from merely passive forces such as the economy is a highly technical area of law. When business owners are getting divorced, there are a number of strategic issues involved in valuing the business and analyzing the “active/ passive” factors relative to the owner spouse. One of the most important things a business owner must do when faced with divorce is to retain counsel with experience in business valuation cases to provide essential advice on protecting the rights and assets of the business owner.

Contributor: Cathy C. Hunt: Cathy C. Hunt, Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a leading North Carolina Divorce Lawyer and is experienced in business valuation in cases of separation and divorce. She is a partner with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. For more information contact: North Carolina Family Law Firm, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201,Raleigh, NC 27604,Tel: 919-832-8488, www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case by a qualified family law attorney

Under UIFSA, a North Carolina Court has the authority to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil action to establish child support if he is domiciled in North Carolina. The defendant may claim that he is not a resident of North Carolina and thus the North Carolina courts should not have jurisdiction over him to establish child support; however, if the court finds that he is domiciled in North Carolina, then it can exercise personal jurisdiction. Domicile has been defined as “the place where [the party] intends to remain permanently, or for an indefinite length of time.” Atassi v. Atassi, 117 N.C. App. 506, 451 S.E.2d 371 (1995).

North Carolina can assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a child support action regardless of whether he lives in North Carolina if the person is served with process within the state of North Carolina. In addition, if the person makes a general appearance in the case, meaning he submits relevant information to the court with respect to the merits of the case or files a response to the child support complaint that does not contest personal jurisdiction, then the North Carolina court can exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.

The defendant’s activities in North Carolina prior to his being served with the child support complaint can also be used to determine whether he is subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. If the defendant is engaged in substantial activity within the state such as buying and selling real estate, obtaining a driver’s license, conducting business, or other substantial activities, then he is subject to North Carolina jurisdiction with respect to child support. North Carolina will also have jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a child support action if the child support claim arises out of a marital relationship that existed in North Carolina regardless of the fact that the defendant subsequently moved. In addition, if the defendant resided in North Carolina with the child or if he resided in North Carolina and paid prenatal expenses or support for the child, or if the child may have been conceived as a result of sexual intercourse by the defendant within North Carolina, then a North Carolina court has jurisdiction to establish child support. Finally, if the child lives in North Carolina as a result of the directives of the defendant or if the defendant asserted paternity in affidavit filed with the clerk of court, North Carolina will jurisdiction to establish child support in an action involving a defendant who may be a resident of another state.

Contributor: Jaime H. Davis - Jaime Davis. a Raleigh Family Law Attorney is a North Carolina Board Certified Family Law Specialist with the Raleigh, North Carolina Divorce Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. For more information contact: Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604. Tel: 919-832-8488, www.gailorwallishunt.com.

For more information contact: Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604. Tel: 919-832-8488, www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case. You may contact North Carolina Family Lawyers, Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC, a full service divorce law firm, at 919-832-8488 or 910-509-7223

After investigation, you find that your spouse has been having an affair with the supervisor at work. The seducing supervisor and your spouse are both employed by a multi-million dollar corporation. You believe the paramour enticed your spouse while the two were working, carried on the relationship while both were on the job, and even had sexual relations within the office. Further, there exists evidence that other employees knew about the affair. Now your spouse and the supervisor are living together, and divorce is imminent.

In North Carolina, you may have a suit for alienation of affection or criminal conversation, i.e. a tort claim, against the paramour. However, the “big pockets” belong to the corporation. Can you sue the paramour and the corporation? Is the corporation liable for the supervisor seducing your spouse while “on the clock?”

Until very recently, this question remained unanswered by North Carolina case law. However, in October 2007, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, in Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, decided the answer is “No.” (As a procedural note, the case was heard in federal court because the parties were from different states.)

In Smith v. Lee, the facts were similar to the scenario described above. Douglas Smith was married to Melissa Smith. Douglas discovered that Melissa was having an affair with her supervisor, Troy Lee. Troy and Melissa both worked for Progressive Lighting, Inc. Douglas decided to sue Troy for alienation of affections and criminal conversation. However, Douglas also decided to join Progressive Lighting, Inc. as a party, on the theory of vicarious liability to the claim for alienation of affection.

For an employer to be liable under a theory of vicarious liability in North Carolina, the plaintiff must prove one of the following about the employer:

1) The employer authorized the employee’s acts;
2) The employee’s acts were committed within the scope of his employment and in
furtherance of the employer’s business; or
3) The employer ratifies the employee’s acts.

A straight-forward example of a typical vicarious liability suit is when a pizza restaurant owner is taken to court for a wreck caused by one of his pizza delivery trucks.

In Smith v. Lee, Douglas tried to use the “pizza delivery boy” theory. Douglas claimed that Troy solicited his wife in his capacity as her supervisor, that Troy’s acts happened while he was at work, and in the scope of his employment and in furtherance of Progressive Lighting’s business; and therefore, Progressive Lighting should be held responsible for the very personal injury inflicted on Douglas and his marriage.

Not only did the Court not agree with Douglas, but they dismissed his claim against Progressive Lighting on a summary judgment motion. The Court found that “even if the Court accept[ed] [Douglas’] allegations that [Troy’s] employer knew of the affair, knowledge alone is not enough to show ratification…Progressive Lighting is not in the business of relationships, and the Court fails to see how relationships between employees would be either in the scope of the company’s business or would further the business in any sort of productive manner.”

The Court did not elaborate on what else – besides actual knowledge of the affair – was needed to show that the company had “ratified” the affair. The Court may have excused itself from such elaboration because of what it found next.

After clarifying that Progressive had not “ratified” the behavior, the Court also extended its holding to include a public policy basis for ruling against Douglas. It stated, “[T]his Court is loathe to apply vicarious liability against employer for torts of alienation of affection or criminal conversation. It is simply unreasonable to expect businesses to regulate the intimate and personal affairs of their employees…NC public policy disfavors the extension of marital torts to employers. Torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation are private and personal. Holding employers to owe a duty to the spouses of their employees would extend the potential liability of employers infinitely.”

Smith v. Lee presents a broad holding that seems to shut the door on vicarious liability for employers for plaintiffs asserting heart balm torts. If you suspect your spouse is having an affair, regardless if it is with a coworker, you should arrange a consultation with a family law attorney in your area as soon as possible. Such conduct could lead to a claim for alienation of affection, or on a more basic level, affect a claim for alimony.

Contributor: Rebecca F. Redwine. Rebecca Redwine is a Raleigh Family Law Attorney with the North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC.

For more information Contact the Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488, or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: 1) grand juries for capital crimes; 2) a prohibition on double jeopardy; 3) a prohibition against required self-incrimination; 4) a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial; 5) and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may “plead the Fifth” and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

“Pleading the Fifth” typically occurs in family law cases when there is evidence of illegal activity by one of the spouses. According to North Carolina criminal law, adultery is a criminal offense. Because the act of adultery is technically a crime, a spouse or paramour who has committed adultery can refuse to testify about the adulterous behavior based upon his or her Fifth Amendment right, because he or she could technically be subjecting himself or herself to criminal prosecution. Though I know of no prosecutorial district in North Carolina that enforces the adultery statute, it is still valid law and accordingly allows the person(s) to plead the Fifth. Another instance where a spouse may plead the Fifth in a family law case is when there are allegations of illegal drug use. Obviously, the State and/or Federal government could use any admission of illegal drug activity in the indictment and prosecution of such drug offenses. Domestic violence/physical abuse is another potential criminal offense that frequently arises in family law cases. Parties can face criminal and civil liability for abusive conduct and have the right to plead the Fifth Amendment regarding such conduct. Finally, a party may sometimes play private investigator and tape record telephone conversations involving his/her spouse. Clients should proceed with extreme caution before recording any telephone conversations and consult with an attorney about potential civil and criminal liability associated with such recordings. A client may have Fifth Amendment protection associated with potential criminal charges associated with such recordings.

Pleading the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic, however, can have a dramatic effect on the client’s civil domestic case. Asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege protects the person from self-incrimination in the criminal process. However, North Carolina courts have held that the Fifth Amendment “is intended to be shield and not a sword.” Thus, if a person pleads the Fifth Amendment in a civil domestic action, the trier of fact (judge or jury, depending on the issues involved), is allowed to infer that the answer to the question would have been negative to the person’s interest. If the privileged information sought from the client is material and essential to the defense of the client’s claim, the client must decide whether to come forward with the privileged information or whether to assert the privilege and forego the claim in which such information is necessary. Therefore, a lawyer should consider carefully when a client should plead the Fifth Amendment, weighing the likelihood that the client will actually face criminal prosecution versus the potential impact on the client’s civil domestic action.

Contributor: Stephanie T. Jenkins. Stephanie Jenkins is a Raleigh, North Carolina Family Law Attorney and a Partner in the Family Law Firm of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. She is a former Wake County, North Carolina Assistant District Attorney. Stephanie has been practicing family law and criminal law for over 15 years in Raleigh, North Carolina.

For more information contact: Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC at 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 201, Raleigh, NC 27604, Tel: 919-832-8488 or go to www.gailorwallishunt.com.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended as a general guide and is not to be used as legal advice by Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, PLLC. Whether or not you may be entitled to take action in regard to the information addressed in this article can only be determined after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of your case.

In efforts to inform feuding couples of the effects a bystanding child experiences in witnessing fights, the Raleigh family law attorneys of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt present the findings of a study aimed at examining children’s responses to feuding parents.

North Carolina divorce lawyers report:

Science Daily reported on a 2008 study conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester, Syracuse University and the University of Notre Dame that charted how children’s concerns over their parents’ relationship affected their abilities to pay attention in school. The study, “Children’s Insecure Representations of the Interparental Relationship and their School Adjustment: The Mediating Role of Attention Difficulties,” examined 216 predominantly white 6-year-olds, their parents and their teachers over a three-year period.

Teachers reported annually on the children’s ability to participate in class activities, get along with others and acclimate within the school setting in general. Teachers specifically were told to determine whether the children were cooperative with peers, followed directions, used classroom materials responsibly and acted in an overall appropriate manner.

According to reports, children who were concerned about their parents displayed more attention problems a year after the onset of stress was reported. These attention difficulties came hand-in-hand with teacher reports of adjustment issues in school.  Many cases found that children’s negative thoughts were based on witnessing actual relationship problems between parents.

Raleigh divorce lawyers of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt further report that other studies on the effects of feuding spouses on children found that the stress hormone cortisol elevated in all situations of strife, whether the negativity was heard over the phone or within the home. These realizations bring to light the importance of protecting children from feuding families and divorce. Sheltering a child from the negativity of spousal fighting is not only important for the child’s mental health, it is also important for the child’s educational and social wellbeing. Whether the fight is in the kitchen, over the phone or in the courtroom, the child is affected in a negative manner.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that while the public still strongly believes the traditional 2-parent home is the best scenario for raising children, a divorce is the lesser of two evils when it comes to unhappy marriages. When given a scenario of very unhappily married parents, and then asked whether the children would better benefit from the parents remaining married or divorcing, 67 percent of adults surveyed stated a divorce would be better. Only 19 percent thought it a good idea to remain married.

While it is obvious to all Americans that the divorce rate is rising, what is not always obvious is the fact that a softer approach to separation could prove beneficial to all members of the family. As a parent would naturally want to shield a child from the backlash of in-home fighting, the parent should also realize in-court battles can prove detrimental to the child. When divorces go to court, the battle is not always friendly and tensions inevitably mount. Approaching a separation with mediation is a private way to handle your affairs.

Hiring family law attorneys to conduct mediation gives parents the opportunity to handle separation issues with referee-type counselors and attorneys, they handle it without the hassle of dragging children into court , forcing them to watch a he-said, she-said battle. Keeping children sheltered from the unnecessary stress of watching parents battle, whether in the home or in court, saves them from undue stress. Shielding children from excess levels of stress proves beneficial in the long run. It helps them deal with their every day lives at school and with surrounding peers. If you could prevent your child from experiencing undue stress, problems with concentration and difficulties with peer relationships, wouldn’t you do it?

North Carolina divorce lawyers Gailor, Wallis and Hunt, have dedicated their lives to helping men and women work through the divorce process, and are especially knowledgeable and ready to help in all areas of mediation. Divorce lawyers of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt have used their 80 plus combined years of family law litigation experience and their collaborative skills to help couples dissolve their marriages in as non adversarial a manner as possible so that they can move on with their lives. To contact the family law firm of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt, call 866-362-7586.

Press Release Contact Information:

North Carolina family lawyers of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt present:

Saying thank you may not just be a useful sign of courtesy to teach your children, it may actually positively affect every relationship you have.

North Carolina divorce attorneys of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt reveal a recent study that has found that saying “thank you” to your partner may improve your overall attitude when it comes to your relationship. The simple but often overlooked act of saying words of gratitude not only broadcasts feelings of appreciation towards the person receiving them, but echoes positivity within the person stating them.

Simply stated, by saying you are grateful, you can actually become grateful.

A recent study conducted by Florida State University research associate Nathaniel Lambert found that expressing gratitude boosts a deeper sense of commitment and responsibility, or communal strength, within a relationship. Lambert explains the theory as, “when you express gratitude to someone, you are focusing on the good things that person has done for you…It makes you see them in a more positive light and helps you focus in on their good traits.”

Lambert and several colleagues used three different scenarios to test whether the act of expressing thankfulness was linked to increased feelings of communal strength.

In one study group, 137 college students were surveyed regarding how often they thanked a friend or partner. The results indicated that gratitude was positively linked with the individual’s perception of communal strength.

The students were also interviewed six weeks later, in attempts to see if they experienced an increase in the quality of their relationship since they had become aware of the correlation between verbalizing gratitude and feelings of communal strength. Researchers found the students did report feeling more positive about their relationships.

Lastly, a group of study participants were instructed to go out of their way to express their gratitude to their partners in attempts to discover whether the words would lead to improved feelings towards the relationship. In order to compare the results, the researchers had other volunteers think grateful thoughts, without verbalizing them. A third group in the study was told to focus on positive memories only.

At the end of the trial, all three groups were interviewed on their attitudes towards their relationship. Those who frequently verbalized or transcribed their gratitude saw their relationship as more mutual and cooperative as a result. Those who merely thought about their gratitude did not experience an improvement in attitude.

Scientists conclude that saying “thank you” sends a message to the receiver and the sender at the same time. And not only does the action itself produce an immediate positive effect; expressing gratitude towards someone will often result in the receiver reciprocating the action with similar thoughts.

For example, if one spouse thanks the other for a great dinner, the other will most likely respond with a thank you for the desert.

Lambert described this phenomenon of the effects of expressions of gratitude on relationships by stating, “It can potentially change the trajectory from a negative focus to more of a positive outlook of the relationship.”

And, if these constant feelings of appreciation turn into a marriage proposal, the family law office of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt can help you prepare your pre-marital agreement so that in the case of a divorce, your assets will be protected and the dissolution of marriage, should it occur, can be as non-adversarial as possible.

The highly respected attorneys of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt have dedicated their lives to helping couples plan for, and preserve their marriage and family, but are also dedicated to assisting them obtain a fair and equitable divorce when that is the only alternative. GWH offers knowledge, skill and experience in the many areas of family law that is second to none.

Press Release Contact Information:

When starting the process of determining child custody, the first issue is whether North Carolina has jurisdiction to determine the custodial rights of the parents.

Under North Carolina’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, (UCCJA) the court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if one or more of the following qualifications are met:

1. North Carolina is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within six months prior to the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from the state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to reside in the state
2. A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under No. 1 above or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that North Carolina is a more appropriate forum and:
   1. The child and the child’s parents have a significant connection with North Carolina other than mere physical presence; and
   2. substantial evidence is available in North Carolina concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships.
3. All states having jurisdiction under No.’s 1 and 2 above have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that North Carolina is the more appropriate forum to determine custody of the child; or
4. No other court of any state would have jurisdiction under the criteria set forth in No’s 1, 2 or 3 above.

In cases where a child is abused or threatened with abuse, a North Carolina court can exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in the state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, a sibling or parent of the child is subjected to or threatened  with mistreatment or abuse.

Once jurisdiction has been established to make an initial child custody determination, North Carolina law requires that if the issue of custody of a child is contested, the parents are required to appear for mediation of the dispute before the matter can be set for trial There are only a few exceptions to the mandatory mediation which requires a showing of good cause:

• If allegations of abuse or neglect of the child arise;
• If  there are allegations of alcoholism, drug abuse or domestic violence between the parents;
• If allegations of severe psychological, psychiatric or emotional problems are present;
• If the judge finds that mediation would result in “undue hardship” for a parent; or
• If either parent lives more than 50 miles from the courthouse.

If no agreement is reached in mediation, or mediation is not an option in the child custody case, the issue of custody will be resolved by a judge whose decision will be based on the best interest of the child.

In making a custody decision, a judge will consider each parent’s ability to provide the child with a safe, nurturing environment; the child’s emotional attachment to each parent’s household; the physical and mental health of parents and child; and where the child is currently residing.

There is no presumption between the mother and father regarding which parent should have custody, although a natural parent will be presumed to be the appropriate custodian as opposed to a third party. This presumption is, however, rebuttable and, if the best interest of the child require it, the judge may award custody to a third party.

Gailor, Wallis & Hunt represents both mothers and fathers. The firm’s experienced attorneys can help with any custody dispute and work to ensure that the best interest of the child or children is served. GWH provides both services when it comes to child custody: mediation and litigation.

The North Carolina divorce attorneys of Gailor, Wallis and Hunt offer a holistic approach to custody disputes that seeks to resolve the dispute without the need for litigation, if at all possible. This approach utilizes the expertise of other professionals such as child psychologists, social workers and others who can address the physical, mental and developmental needs of the children involved in the custody dispute.

But when decisions about custody and visitation must be tried in a courtroom, the attorneys of Gailor, Wallis & Hunt are experienced and highly skilled in custody litigation that requires detailed investigation, preparation and presentation in court.

North Carolina divorce attorneys Gailor, Wallis & Hunt, have dedicated their lives to helping men and women work through the divorce process, and are knowledgeable and experienced in all of the issues relevant to child custody lawsuits. GWH offers knowledge, skill and experience in the many areas of family law that is second to none.

Press Release Contact Information: