The court before which the matter may be brought shall determine whether or not the defendant is a parent of the child on whose behalf the proceeding is instituted. After this matter has been determined in the affirmative, the court shall proceed to determine the issue as to whether or not the defendant has neglected or refused to provide adequate support and maintain the child who is the subject of the proceeding. After this matter has been determined in the affirmative, the court shall fix by order, subject to modification or increase from time to time, a specific sum of money necessary for the support and maintenance of the child, subject to the limitations of G.S. 50-13.10. The amount of child support shall be determined as provided in G.S. 50-13.4(c). The order fixing the sum shall require the defendant to pay it either as a lump sum or in periodic payments as the circumstances of the case may appear to the court. The social security number, if known, of the minor child's parents shall be placed in the record of the proceeding. Compliance by the defendant with any or all of the further provisions of this Article or the order or orders of the court requiring additional acts to be performed by the defendant shall not be construed to relieve the defendant of his or her responsibility to pay the sum fixed or any modification or increase thereof.
The court before whom the matter may be brought, on motion of the State or the defendant, shall order that the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child submit to any blood tests and comparisons which have been developed and adapted for purposes of establishing or disproving parentage and which are reasonably accessible to the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child. The results of those blood tests and comparisons, including the statistical likelihood of the alleged parent's parentage, if available, shall be admitted in evidence when offered by a duly qualified, licensed practicing physician, duly qualified immunologist, duly qualified geneticist or other duly qualified person. The evidentiary effect of those blood tests and comparisons and the manner in which the expenses therefor are to be taxed as costs shall be as prescribed in G.S. 8-50.1. In addition, if a jury tries the issue of parentage, they shall be instructed as set out in G.S. 8-50.1. From a finding on the issue of parentage against the alleged-parent defendant, the alleged-parent defendant has the same right of appeal as though he or she had been found guilty of the crime of willful failure to support a child born out of wedlock. (1933, c. 228, s. 6; 1937, c. 432, s. 2; 1939, c. 217, ss. 1, 4; 1944, c. 40; 1947, c. 1014; 1971, c. 1185, s. 19; 1975, c. 449, s. 3; 1977, c. 3, s. 2; 1979, c. 576, s. 2; 1987, c. 739, s. 1; 1989, c. 529, s. 6; 1997-433, s. 4.1; 1998-17, s. 1; 2013-198, s. 20.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases, 1950–1984 · leading case:
State v. Camp, 209 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1974).
State v. Camp, 209 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1974).
· cites it 9× “G.S. § 49-7; G.S. § 8-50.1. G.S. § 8-50.1 further provides that ".”
Tidwell v. Booker, 225 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. 1976).
· cites it 4× “" GS 49-7 (Emphasis added.) In 1963, upon a warrant valid in form, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the defendant was charged with violation of GS 49-2 by his failure and refusal to provide support for Claudia Ann, then one month old.”
State v. Green, 176 S.E.2d 756 (N.C. 1970).
· cites it 3× “G.S. 49-7. Defendant argues that in addition to the maximum punishment of six months other serious consequences are involved, in that, once the issue of paternity is established it cannot again be contested and defendant may then be tried again and again for willful failure to…”
State v. Coffey, 164 S.E.2d 39 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 4× “” G.S. 49-7. In the present case the judge of the district court found the issue of paternity against the defendant but found that no demand for support had been made upon defendant after the child’s birth.”
State v. Fowler, 177 S.E.2d 385 (N.C. 1970).
· cites it 2× “” G.S. 49-7. In 1949, by G.S. 8-50.1, this same right was extended to “any criminal action or proceedings in any court in which the question of paternity arises, regardless of any presumptions with respect to paternity.”
State v. Robinson, 72 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. 1952).
· cites it 2× “49-2, G.S. 49-7, as interpreted and applied in decisions of tbis Court, we are of opinion, and bold that such judgment of nonsuit does not constitute an adjudication on tbe issue of paternity.”
State v. Robinson, 103 S.E.2d 376 (N.C. 1958).
“G.S. 49-7 and G.S. 49-8; S. v. Bowser, 232 N.”
State v. Ellis, 137 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1964).
“The only prosecution contemplated under this statute is grounded on the wilful neglect or refusal of a parent to support his or her illegitimate child. The mere begetting of the child is not a crime.”
State v. Robinson, 95 S.E.2d 126 (N.C. 1956).
· cites it 3× “” ■ ■ Proceedings under the statute may be instituted in the Superior Court or any court inferior to the Superior Court “except courts of justices of the peace and courts whose criminal jurisdiction does not exceed that of justices of the peace.”
Wilkes Cnty., Child Support Enf't Agency v. Gentry, 319 S.E.2d 224 (N.C. 1984).
· cites it 6× “We do not accept defendant’s contention that the payment of the lump sum amount ordered as a result of the 1974 conviction for nonsupport of an illegitimate child relieves defendant’s responsibility for future support.”
State v. Garner, 238 S.E.2d 653 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977).
“The jury has found him not guilty, and the State could not have appealed from that verdict. Defendant, in a trial in which we find no error, has appealed from a finding against him on the issue of paternity.”
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.