Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Patiencegreen2 sentences2006See Jones v. Patience, 121 N.C. 2006See Jones v. Patience, 121 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Price v. Howardgreen2 sentences2024The primary import of the “Petersen presumption” lies in its impact on the burden of proof to be applied in a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent party: “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a non[-]parent regarding those children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.” Boseman v. -9- Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 , 704 S.E.2d 494, 503 (2010) (citing Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 73 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 531 (1997)). 2024The primary import of the “Petersen presumption” lies in its impact on the burden of proof to be applied in a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent party: “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a non[-]parent regarding those children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.” Boseman v. -9- Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 , 704 S.E.2d 494, 503 (2010) (citing Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 73 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 531 (1997)). | 2 | 4 |
Bivens v. COTTLE (WESTLAKE)green2 sentences2021In doing so, Intervenors essentially argue that the trial court failed to follow the precedent established in Bivens v. Cottle, 120 N.C. App. 467, 469 , 462 S.E.2d 829, 831 (1995), which held that the Petersen presumption in favor of a natural parent does not apply to a custody modification proceeding. 2021In doing so, Intervenors essentially argue that the trial court failed to follow the precedent established in Bivens v. Cottle, 120 N.C. App. 467, 469 , 462 S.E.2d 829, 831 (1995), which held that the Petersen presumption in favor of a natural parent does not apply to a custody modification proceeding. | 2 | 3 |
Petersen v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2018As support for this holding, Moore quoted Petersen v. Rogers , 337 N.C. 397 , 403-04, 445 S.E.2d 901 , 905 (1994), which established a constitutionally-based presumption favoring a parent in a custody dispute with a non-parent (the " Petersen presumption"). 4 But unlike Moore , Petersen involved a custody conflict between parents and non-parents. 337 N.C. at 399 , 445 S.E.2d at 902 . 2018As support for this holding, Moore quoted Petersen v. Rogers , 337 N.C. 397 , 403-04, 445 S.E.2d 901 , 905 (1994), which established a constitutionally-based presumption favoring a parent in a custody dispute with a non-parent (the " Petersen presumption"). 4 But unlike Moore , Petersen involved a custody conflict between parents and non-parents. 337 N.C. at 399 , 445 S.E.2d at 902 . | 2 | 3 |
Lambert v. Riddickgreen2 sentences2021Bivens, 120 N.C. App. at 469 , 462 S.E.2d at 831 ; see also Lambert v. Riddick, 120 N.C. App. 480 , 482-83, 462 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1995). 2021Bivens, 120 N.C. App. at 469 , 462 S.E.2d at 831 ; see also Lambert v. Riddick, 120 N.C. App. 480 , 482-83, 462 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Owenby v. Younggreen2 sentences2020In determining Owenby, we acknowledged the Petersen presumption and reaffirmed that “unless a natural parent’s conduct has been inconsistent with his or her constitutionally protected status, application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard in a custody dispute with a nonparent offends the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 145 , 579 S.E.2d at 266-67 (citations omitted). 2020In determining Owenby, we acknowledged the Petersen presumption and reaffirmed that “unless a natural parent’s conduct has been inconsistent with his or her constitutionally protected status, application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard in a custody dispute with a nonparent offends the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 145 , 579 S.E.2d at 266-67 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Respess v. Respessgreen2 sentences2018App. at 626 , 754 S.E.2d at 701-02 (" Moore's holding that the Petersen presumption applies to a trial court's decision to deny visitation *453 rights to a non-custodial parent [in a dispute with the custodial parent] contradicts our Supreme Court's holding [in Owenby ] that Petersen is 'irrelevant' to a dispute between parents and that in such instances, the trial court must determine custody using the 'best interest of the child' test." (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted) ). 2018App. at 626 , 754 S.E.2d at 701-02 (" Moore's holding that the Petersen presumption applies to a trial court's decision to deny visitation *453 rights to a non-custodial parent [in a dispute with the custodial parent] contradicts our Supreme Court's holding [in Owenby ] that Petersen is 'irrelevant' to a dispute between parents and that in such instances, the trial court must determine custody using the 'best interest of the child' test." (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted) ). | 2 | 2 |
Brewer v. Brewergreen2 sentences2018In light of the circumstances before it, the Court held: a natural parent should maintain her " Petersen presumption against a non-parent where the parent had voluntarily relinquished custody to the other parent, had never voluntarily or involuntarily relinquished custody to a non-parent, had never been adjudged unfit, and had never acted in a manner inconsistent with her protected parental status." Id. at 232, 533 S.E.2d at 548 . 2018App. 222 , 232, 533 S.E.2d 541 , 549 (2000) ("[A] parent who voluntarily gave custody to the other parent and has never been adjudged unfit does not lose [their] Petersen presumption against a non-parent third party so long as the non-parent third party does not have court-ordered custody."). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Baby Boy Dixongreen2 sentences2010See Dixon, 112 N.C. 2010See Dixon, 112 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Helmsgreen2 sentences2004See id. 2004See id. | 2 | 2 |
Boseman v. Jarrellgreen2 sentences2024The primary import of the “Petersen presumption” lies in its impact on the burden of proof to be applied in a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent party: “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a non[-]parent regarding those children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.” Boseman v. -9- Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 , 704 S.E.2d 494, 503 (2010) (citing Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 73 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 531 (1997)). 2024The primary import of the “Petersen presumption” lies in its impact on the burden of proof to be applied in a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent party: “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a non[-]parent regarding those children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.” Boseman v. -9- Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 , 704 S.E.2d 494, 503 (2010) (citing Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 73 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 531 (1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Routten v. Routten
green
2 sentences2020As to the second issue which we consider upon this review, the lower appellate court’s majority vacated the portion of the trial court’s conclusion of law stating that “[p]laintiff may permit custodial time between the children and [d]efendant within his sole discretion, taking into account the recommendations of [the parties’ daughter’s] counselor as to frequency, location, duration, and any other restrictions deemed appropriate by the counselor for permitting visitation between [the parties’ daughter] and [defendant].” See Routten, 262 N.C. App at, 443-44, 822 S.E.2d at 442 . 2020As to the second issue which we consider upon this review, the lower appellate court’s majority vacated the portion of the trial court’s conclusion of law stating that “[p]laintiff may permit custodial time between the children and [d]efendant within his sole discretion, taking into account the recommendations of [the parties’ daughter’s] counselor as to frequency, location, duration, and any other restrictions deemed appropriate by the counselor for permitting visitation between [the parties’ daughter] and [defendant].” See Routten, 262 N.C. App at, 443-44, 822 S.E.2d at 442 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2018As support for this holding, Moore quoted Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 403-04 , 445 S.E.2d 901, 905 (1994), which established a constitutionally-based presumption favoring a parent in a custody dispute with a non-parent (the “Petersen presumption”).4 But unlike Moore, Petersen involved a custody conflict between parents and non-parents. 337 N.C. at 4 Petersen quoted the holding in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), that “ ‘[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include 2018As support for this holding, Moore quoted Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 403-04 , 445 S.E.2d 901, 905 (1994), which established a constitutionally-based presumption favoring a parent in a custody dispute with a non-parent (the “Petersen presumption”).4 But unlike Moore, Petersen involved a custody conflict between parents and non-parents. 337 N.C. at 4 Petersen quoted the holding in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), that “ ‘[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Adams v. Tessener
green
2 sentences2014Moore’s holding that the Petersen presumption applies to a trial court’s decision to deny visitation rights to a non-custodial parent contradicts our Supreme Court’s holding that Petersen is “irrelevant” to a dispute between parents and that “[i]n such instances, the trial court must determine custody using the ‘best interest of the child’ test.” Id. 2014Moore’s holding that the Petersen presumption applies to a trial court’s decision to deny visitation rights to a non-custodial parent contradicts our Supreme Court’s holding that Petersen is “irrelevant” to a dispute between parents and that “[i]n such instances, the trial court must determine custody using the ‘best interest of the child’ test.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Phelps v. Phelps
green
2 sentences1996Accordingly, the trial court did not err by applying the “best interests of the child” standard, see Phelps v. Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 354 , 446 S.E.2d 17, 23 , reh’g denied, 337 N.C. 807 , 449 S.E.2d 750 (1994), and awarding visitation to the plaintiff. 1996Accordingly, the trial court did not err by applying the “best interests of the child” standard, see Phelps v. Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 354 , 446 S.E.2d 17, 23 , reh’g denied, 337 N.C. 807 , 449 S.E.2d 750 (1994), and awarding visitation to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Phelps v. Phelps
green
2 sentences1996Accordingly, the trial court did not err by applying the “best interests of the child” standard, see Phelps v. Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 354 , 446 S.E.2d 17, 23 , reh’g denied, 337 N.C. 807 , 449 S.E.2d 750 (1994), and awarding visitation to the plaintiff. 1996Accordingly, the trial court did not err by applying the “best interests of the child” standard, see Phelps v. Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 354 , 446 S.E.2d 17, 23 , reh’g denied, 337 N.C. 807 , 449 S.E.2d 750 (1994), and awarding visitation to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.