{ "id": 8523636, "name": "PATRICIA L. RAY, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY CHARLES RAY and TERESA LONG RAY, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Ray", "decision_date": "1991-08-20", "docket_number": "No. 905DC1241", "first_page": "790", "last_page": "794", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. App. 790" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "90 ALR3d 222", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 ALR4th 1270", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "258 S.E.2d 828", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552273 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564227, 8564314, 8564284, 8564253, 8564383 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0360-01", "/nc/293/0360-04", "/nc/293/0360-03", "/nc/293/0360-02", "/nc/293/0360-05" ] }, { "cite": "236 S.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 N.C. App. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552585 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/33/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 S.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "840" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170267 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.C. App. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522182 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/89/0351-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 447, "char_count": 7994, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.605085434253971e-08, "percentile": 0.4036521048138328 }, "sha256": "22134c39c2a883253e3c5006d33cfd47ec6293e8c15d0e122973b6f33a8ecc3c", "simhash": "1:614d7d3664ab946e", "word_count": 1301 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge Greene concurs.", "Judge EAGLES concurs separately." ], "parties": [ "PATRICIA L. RAY, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY CHARLES RAY and TERESA LONG RAY, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThis case presents the Court with one issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s complaint on the ground that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.1 (as amended in 1989) did not give the plaintiff step-grandmother a right to bring a claim for visitation.\nThe plaintiff is the step-grandmother of the minor child, Elissa Ashley Ray, who was born in 1985. The plaintiff was married to defendant Jeffrey C. Ray\u2019s father, Glenn M. Ray, who is now deceased. The minor child\u2019s biological parents, the defendants in this case, are married but currently living apart.\nThe plaintiff filed a complaint alleging:\nThat this plaintiff is step-grandmother to the minor child, Elissa Ashley ray, and that this plaintiff at all times maintained a significant and meaningful relationship with the minor child, Elissa Ashley Ray.\nThat this plaintiff has served and continues to serve as Executrix of the Estate of her deceased husband, Glenn Mead Ray, and that beginning December 27, 1988, the defendants began totally depriving ELISSA ASHLEY RAY from her relationship with this plaintiff and that it was contrary to the best interests of the minor child to not permit the child to see, be with or talk with this plaintiff; that this plaintiff and the child, ELISSA ASHLEY RAY, love one another dearly and spent a lot of time together developing an extremely close relationship; that this plaintiff was a stability factor to the child Elissa Ashley RAY; that the defendants wrongfully interfered with the relationship and withheld the child from the plaintiff solely for reasons related to the administration of the estate of Glenn Mead Ray.\nAfter a hearing on the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the trial judge dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Smith found in his order that there was \u201cno biological or adoptive relationship between the defendants and the plaintiff or between the minor child and the plaintiff.\u201d Judge Smith further found in pertinent part:\nThat the pleading alleges no other pending action or proceeding by which the Court has custody jurisdiction over the defendants or the minor child, and defendant concedes in argument that there exists no basis for jurisdiction other than an argued \u201cright\u201d conferred upon plaintiff by virtue of recent amendments to G.S. 50-13.1.\nThe Court has considered the argument of counsel for plaintiff that allowing an amendment to the pleadings to claim a specific \u201cright\u201d to visitation under 50-13.1 would remedy any defect in her pleadings; and specifically rejects plaintiff\u2019s argument that the legislature intended to overturn the general case law which asserts that, with certain specific statutory exceptions, the parents with lawful custody of a child have the prerogative of determining with whom their children shall associate (Moore v. Moore, 89 N.C. App. 351).\nThe legislature has carved out specific exceptions for both \u201cbiological grandparents\u201d and \u201cadoptive grandparents,\u201d and has made no other exceptions for non-biological, non-adoptive \u201cstep-grandparents,\u201d particularly where the relationship by affinity has terminated by divorce or, as in this case, by death of the biological relative on whom the affinity depends.\nNor is the Court persuaded, as counsel for plaintiff argues, that G.S. 50-13.1 was ever intended by the legislature to confer upon strangers the right to bring custody or visitation actions against the parents of children unrelated to them. Such an interpretation would nullify any need for G.S. 50-13.2(bl) and 50-13.2A, neither of which have been repealed.\nThe issue before the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted on any theory. Harris v. NCNB National Bank, 85 N.C. App. 669, 670-71, 335 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1987). For the purposes of the motion, the allegations in the complaint are treated as true. Id.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s complaint is based on her right to bring an action for visitation under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 5043.1(a). The statute provides:\nAny parent, relative or other person, agency, organization or institution claiming the right to custody of a minor child may institute an action or proceeding for the custody of such child, as hereinafter provided. Unless a contrary intent is clear, the word \u201ccustody\u201d shall be deemed to include custody or visitation or both.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 5043.1(a).\nThe plain language of the statute allows the plaintiff\u2019s action as an \u201cother person.\u201d However, citing Acker v. Barnes, 33 N.C. App. 750, 236 S.E.2d 715, disc. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 360, 238 S.E.2d 149 (1977), and Moore v. Moore, 89 N.C. App. 351, 365 S.E.2d 662 (1988), the defendants argue that North Carolina law grants parents who have lawful custody of their minor children the prerogative of determining with whom their children will associate. We agree that in Moore and Acker the North Carolina Court of Appeals stated that parents have such a prerogative to determine with whom their children associate. However, we hold that in 1989 when the legislature changed N.C.G.S. \u00a7 5043.1(a) so that it includes the right to bring an action for visitation, that law changed.\nOther statutes which allow actions for visitation (i.e. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 5043.2A, 5043.2(bl) and 5043.5(j)) are merely supplemental. These statutes do not in any way contradict N.C.G.S. \u00a7 5043.1(a) nor do they create an exception to the step-grandparent\u2019s right to bring an action for visitation in this case.\nIn In re Rooker, 43 N.C. App. 397, 258 S.E.2d 828 (1979), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a stranger, qualifying as an \u201cother person\u201d has a right to claim custody under the statute. Since that case, the statute was amended to include visitation. Therefore, we hold that the step-grandmother in this case qualifies as an \u201cother person\u201d and is entitled to claim visitation.\nWe note that this subject may involve constitutional issues relating to the substantive due process interests in the care and custody of one\u2019s children. As neither party has brought the issue before this Court, we do not address it. Thus we hold that the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s claim in this 12(b)(6) proceeding.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudge Greene concurs.\nJudge EAGLES concurs separately.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge EAGLES\nconcurring.\nI concur. I agree that the express language in G.S. 50-13.1 dictates the result in this case. I write separately only to emphasize that the amended version of G.S. 50-13.1 undermines the traditional prerogative of parents to determine with whom their minor children associate. In my view, the Legislature did not intend this result when it amended the statute.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Judge EAGLES" } ], "attorneys": [ "James L. Nelson and Jerry A. Mannen, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant", "Shipman, Lea & Allard, by James W. Lea, III, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PATRICIA L. RAY, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY CHARLES RAY and TERESA LONG RAY, Defendants\nNo. 905DC1241\n(Filed 20 August 1991)\nDivorce and Separation \u00a7 383 (NCI4th)\u2014 step-grandparent \u2014 right to bring action for visitation\nThe trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint on the ground that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.1 (as amended in 1989) did not give the plaintiff step-grandmother a right to bring a claim for visitation, since that statute provides that \u201cAny parent, relative or other person . . . claiming the right to custody of a minor child may institute an action or proceeding for the custody of such child. . . . Unless a contrary intent is clear, the word \u2018custody\u2019 shall be deemed to include custody or visitation or both.\u201d\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 1002.\nVisitation rights of persons other than natural parent or grandparents. 1 ALR4th 1270.\nGrandparents\u2019 visitation rights. 90 ALR3d 222.\nJudge EAGLES concurring.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from an order entered 8 October 1990 by Judge John W. Smith in NEW HANOVER County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 June 1991.\nJames L. Nelson and Jerry A. Mannen, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant\nShipman, Lea & Allard, by James W. Lea, III, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0790-01", "first_page_order": 820, "last_page_order": 824 }