{
  "id": 8553840,
  "name": "BARBARA S. STEVENS v. LLOYD B. STEVENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. Stevens",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 758DC316",
  "first_page": "509",
  "last_page": "511",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 509"
    }
  ],
  "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": "97 S.E. 2d 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625415
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0193-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3798,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5774025744928804e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8168225251742476
    },
    "sha256": "ee19fb725dbe336a1770fc1d97fc74f0887a3a45a09ba9256a8e735006aebc76",
    "simhash": "1:d22efa2f9a04285e",
    "word_count": 636
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Morris and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA S. STEVENS v. LLOYD B. STEVENS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThere was competent evidence to support the court\u2019s finding that there was a sufficient change of circumstances to justify modifying the prior order. The evidence also supports the court\u2019s findings that the best interest and welfare of. the child will be served by placing him in the custody of defendant. Plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error to the contrary are overruled.\nPlaintiff\u2019s other assignment of error is that the court erred in privately interviewing the minor child in the absence of the plaintiff and her attorney.\nImmediately following the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the following appears in the record:\n\u201c(Conference with the Court and the counsel in the Judge\u2019s Chambers.)\n(Without objection of either counsel, the Court privately interviewed the minor child, Henry Stevens.)\u201d\nThereafter defendant offered his evidence. The child was not called as a witness by either party or by the court.\nPlaintiff relies upon Raper v. Berrier, 246 N.C. 193, 97 S.E. 2d 782 where the Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the judge privately conferred with the child in chambers. In Raper, however, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the parties consented to the interview or had the opportunity to object to its being held. Reference to the interview appeared for the first time in the court\u2019s findings of fact. In the case before us the record indicates that the interview was conducted with the informed acquiescence of both parties. Obviously the parties were given the opportunity to object and did not do so. That is the clear meaning of the term \u201cwithout objection.\u201d\nThe primary goal of the court is to do what is best for the child and this is an awesome responsibility for any judge. In many cases the judge can gain valuable insight into the problem by quietly talking with the child in a neutral atmosphere.\nThe interests of the parents are secondary. Nevertheless, as litigants they can insist on their legal right that the judge consider nothing except evidence duly developed in open court. They can, however, waive that right. If plaintiff had objected to the private interview it could not have been conducted. In that event defendant, at trial, would have had the opportunity to elect whether to offer the child as a witness in the hostile atmosphere of a courtroom battle between his parents. More importantly, the judge would have had an opportunity to make his own decision on whether to interrogate the child in the presence of both parents and subject the child to further examination by all of the parties.\nWe hold that plaintiff\u2019s failure to object and except to the procedure at trial when given the opportunity now estops her from asserting it as error on appeal.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudge Morris and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kornegay & Bruce, P.A., by Robert T. Rice, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Taylor, Allen, Warren & Kerr, by John H. Kerr III, for defendant appellee.."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA S. STEVENS v. LLOYD B. STEVENS\nNo. 758DC316\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\nInfants \u00a7 9\u2014 custody .proceeding \u2014 private interview of child by court \u2014 failure to object\nPlaintiff\u2019s failure to object and except to the trial court\u2019s interview of a minor child in a child custody proceeding when plaintiff was given an opportunity to object estops her from asserting it as error on appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pate,- Judge. Order entered 4 February 1975 in District Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 June 1975.\nThis is an action for custody of a ten-year-old child. The parties to the action, parents of the child, are divorced. Under prior orders of the court the child was placed in the custody of plaintiff. On 4 February 1975 the orders were modified and the child was placed in the custody of defendant. Plaintiff now appeals from that order.\nKornegay & Bruce, P.A., by Robert T. Rice, for plaintiff appellant.\nTaylor, Allen, Warren & Kerr, by John H. Kerr III, for defendant appellee.."
  },
  "file_name": "0509-01",
  "first_page_order": 537,
  "last_page_order": 539
}
