The prosecution of the reputed father of a child born out of wedlock may be instituted under this Chapter within any of the following periods, and not thereafter:
(1) Three years next after the birth of the child; or
(2) Where the paternity of the child has been judicially determined within three years next after its birth, at any time before the child attains the age of 18 years; or
(3) Where the reputed father has acknowledged paternity of the child by payments for the support thereof within three years next after the birth of the child, three years from the date of the last payment whether the last payment was made within three years of the birth of the child or thereafter: Provided, the action is instituted before the child attains the age of 18 years.
The prosecution of the mother of a child born out of wedlock may be instituted under this Chapter at any time before the child attains the age of 18 years. (1933, c. 228, s. 3; 1939, c. 217, s. 3; 1945, c. 1053; 1951, c. 154, s. 2; 2013-198, s. 18.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1944–1984 · leading case:
State v. Caudill, 314 S.E.2d 592 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Caudill, 314 S.E.2d 592 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “§ 49-2 because the action was barred by the three year statute of limitations, contained in G.S. § 49-4. 1 Again we must agree. G.S. § 49-4 provides: When Prosecution May Be Commenced.”
State v. . Dill, 29 S.E.2d 145 (N.C. 1944).
· cites it 2× “G. S., 49-4. The child in question was born 27 June, 1930.”
Durham Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Williams, 277 S.E.2d 865 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“G.S. 49-4(l)-(3). 2 . We would also observe that the record does not show that the mother’s affirmation, once executed, was ever presented to the district court for the express purpose of fulfilling the requirements of G.”
State v. Coffey, 164 S.E.2d 39 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).
“In addition, if the defendant is the reputed father, it must be shown that the prosecution has been instituted within one of the time periods provided in G.S. 49-4. In prosecutions under G.S. 49-2 et seq.”
State v. Beasley, 290 S.E.2d 730 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The State argues that the G.S. § 49-4(1) three year statute of limitations for prosecutions under G.”
State v. Robinson, 95 S.E.2d 126 (N.C. 1956).
“G.S. 49-4. The court charged the jury that the defendant was on trial for unlawfully neglecting and refusing to support and maintain his illegitimate child.”
State v. McKee, 152 S.E.2d 204 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 49-4, however, permits the State to prosecute the putative father • within the following periods “and not thereafter”: *283 “1.”
State v. Womack, 111 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. 1959).
“appears in the statement of case on appeal and reads as follows: “The prose-cutrix in the Superior Court trial testified that her illegitimate child, by the alleged father, Jack Womack, defendant, was bom February 18, 1959; that she first gave written notice and made demand of…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-4(1) — 1 case
State v. Beasley, 290 S.E.2d 730 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
“The State argues that the G.S. § 49-4(1) three year statute of limitations for prosecutions under G.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-4(l) — 1 case
Durham Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Williams, 277 S.E.2d 865 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“G.S. 49-4(l)-(3). 2 . We would also observe that the record does not show that the mother’s affirmation, once executed, was ever presented to the district court for the express purpose of fulfilling the requirements of G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.