{
  "id": 8556146,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF ROBERT CECIL COOKE, III, GLENDA FAYE PEELE, Petitioner v. ROBERT C. COOKE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peele v. Cooke",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7412SC1012",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2313,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "ea81d7585096c6d3588c3795be2189a42233ca67aff04a878b21a926e69623a5",
    "simhash": "1:186ab07fc413e6d6",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF ROBERT CECIL COOKE, III, GLENDA FAYE PEELE, Petitioner v. ROBERT C. COOKE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nSince there must be a new trial we will refrain from a recital of the evidence and say only that the conflicting inferences and conclusions arising therefrom presented a close question for the jury. The errors at trial are, therefore, especially prejudicial to respondent.\n. . The sole issue at trial was whether respondent had abandoned his child.\nThe questions of proper custody, the suitability of Sidney Peele as an adoptive parent and whether adoption of the child by Peele might be in the best interests of the child were not for consideration by the jury. Nevertheless, incompetent and irrelevant evidence on these matters was allowed, over respondent\u2019s objection, to such an extent that it undoubtedly influenced if, indeed, it did not dominate, the jury\u2019s deliberations.\nNew trial.\nJudges Parker and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0 Bobby G. beaver, for petitioner appellee.",
      ". Henry L. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF ROBERT CECIL COOKE, III, GLENDA FAYE PEELE, Petitioner v. ROBERT C. COOKE, JR.\nNo. 7412SC1012\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\nAdoption \u00a7 2\u2014 abandonment of child \u2014 incompetent evidence\nIn a trial to determine whether respondent had abandoned his child and was thus not a necessary party to an adoption proceeding instituted by the child\u2019s stepfather, the trial court erred in the admission of evidence of proper custody, the suitability of the stepfather as an adoptive parent and whether adoption of the child by the stepfather might be in the best interests of the child.\nAppeal by respondent from Hobgood, Judge. Judgment entered 30 August 1974 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 February 1975.\nRespondent, Robert Cooke, is the father of Robert Cooke III, who was born of the marriage of respondent and Glenda Cooke (now married to Sidney Peele and known as Glenda Peele.).\nSidney Peele filed a petition to adopt the child. The court was asked to declare that respondent had abandoned the child and was, therefore, not a necessary party to the adoption proceeding. Respondent denied the abandonment and the issue was transferred to the Superior Court for trial.\nThe jury determined that respondent had willfully abandoned the child for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding institution of the proceeding.\n\u25a0 Bobby G. beaver, for petitioner appellee.\n. Henry L. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 701,
  "last_page_order": 702
}