{
  "id": 8525539,
  "name": "ADA JEAN LATCH v. GEORGE DALE LATCH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Latch v. Latch",
  "decision_date": "1983-08-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8212DC768",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 498"
    }
  ],
  "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": "293 S.E. 2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568484
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0324-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 6591,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.950781921278023e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4213620176311437
    },
    "sha256": "a579d2c3828fdfaf2d392c828a1b0b08134f546d5ce0a479e49c94edab17027a",
    "simhash": "1:8440aa879782f9c3",
    "word_count": 1055
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:10.514065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge WELLS concurs.",
      "Judge HEDRICK concurs in result."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ADA JEAN LATCH v. GEORGE DALE LATCH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nDenial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an interlocutory order, not affecting a substantial right, and therefore not immediately appealable. Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc., 306 N.C. 324, 293 S.E. 2d 182 (1982). However, in order to facilitate an early resolution of the custody issue, which the child\u2019s welfare requires, we will treat defendant\u2019s appeal as a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 21(a), N.C. Rules App. Proc.\nDefendant contends the North Carolina trial court never had subject matter jurisdiction. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act lists four alternative grounds for subject matter jurisdiction. G.S. 50A-3. Plaintiffs claim falls under two of these grounds for jurisdiction.\nG.S. 50A-3(a)(2) authorizes North Carolina court jurisdiction of a child custody matter if:\nIt is in the best interest of the child that a court of this State assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and the child\u2019s parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this State, and (ii) there is available in this State substantial evidence relevant to the child\u2019s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships ....\nPlaintiff has lived most of her life in North Carolina and therefore has a significant connection with this state. Although the child spent the first twenty-two months of her life in Pennsylvania, she has resided in North Carolina approximately one-half of the two years that elapsed between her parents\u2019 separation and her abduction. The child\u2019s mother, who was granted custody under the separation agreement, resides in North Carolina. The child would still be in North Carolina if she had not been abducted. Under these circumstances, the child has a \u201csignificant connection\u201d with this state.\nThe facts that the child had settled into North Carolina residence and that her mother lives in this state support the statutory requirement that there is available in North Carolina \u201csubstantial evidence relevant to the child\u2019s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships . . . .\u201d The trial court properly concluded it had jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-3(a)(2).\nJurisdiction is also authorized under G.S. 50A-3(a)(4) if: In a letter to defendant, the Pennsylvania court stated it was relinquishing jurisdiction to the North Carolina court. This was done to avoid a jurisdictional conflict that would have created difficulties for the child, the parties and the courts, and because the Pennsylvania court was of the opinion that this state is the more appropriate forum under the circumstances. We agree.\n(i) It appears that . . . another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction.\nThe orders appealed from are therefore\nAffirmed.\nJudge WELLS concurs.\nJudge HEDRICK concurs in result.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge HEDRICK\nconcurring in the result.\nI concur in the result reached by the majority; however, I believe the appeal should be dismissed since it is from an interlocutory order not affecting a substantial right. To \u201ctreat defendant\u2019s appeal as a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 21(a)\u201d frustrates the expeditious administration of justice in this case, and encourages appeals from interlocutory orders which causes unnecessary and unreasonable delay and expense.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Judge HEDRICK"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Reid, Lewis & Deese, by Renny W. Deese, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ADA JEAN LATCH v. GEORGE DALE LATCH\nNo. 8212DC768\n(Filed 2 August 1983)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 6.3\u2014 subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 denial of motion to dismiss \u2014 no right of immediate appeal\nDenial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an interlocutory order not affecting a substantial right and is, therefore, not immediately appealable.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 23.5; Infants \u00a7 5\u2014 custody of child in another state \u2014subject matter jurisdicition\nThe courts of this State have subject matter jurisdiction of an action for custody of a child who is physically present in Pennsylvania pursuant to the \u201csignificant connection\u201d provisions of G.S. 50A-3(a)(2)(i) and the \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d provisions of G.S. 50A-3(a)(2)(ii) where the child\u2019s mother, who was granted custody under a separation agreement, resides in North Carolina and has lived in this State most of her life; the child was residing with her mother in this State when she was abducted by the father and taken to Pennsylvania; and the child resided in North Carolina approximately one-half of the two years that had elapsed between her parents\u2019 separation and her abduction. Furthermore, jurisdiction was also authorized under G.S. 50A-3(a)(4) where it appears that a Pennsylvania court has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum and it is in the best interest of the child that North Carolina assume jurisdiction.\nJudge Hedrick concurring in the result.\nAppeal by defendant from Hair, Judge. Orders entered 23 March 1982 and 8 April 1982 in District Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 May 1983.\nPlaintiff sued to obtain custody of and support for the parties\u2019 child, now five years old. When married in 1976, the parties lived in Pennsylvania where the child was born, and they lived in that state until they separated in January, 1980. The separation agreement entered into gave plaintiff custody of the child, and she and the child moved to North Carolina and lived with plaintiffs mother in Fayetteville until September, 1980, when they went back to Pennsylvania and resided there in one of the houses owned by the parties until August, 1981, when they returned to Fayetteville.\nIn September, 1981, defendant instituted a custody action in Pennsylvania, alleging therein that plaintiff was residing in Pennsylvania, even though he knew she and the child were living in North Carolina, and plaintiff did not receive a copy of the suit papers until 26 February 1982. On 5 December 1981, while plaintiff and the child were at a shopping center in Fayetteville, defendant abducted the child and took her back to Pennsylvania with him. Two weeks later, plaintiff filed this action.\nIn responding to plaintiffs suit, defendant contested the Court\u2019s jurisdiction of the subject matter; but after two hearings on defendant\u2019s motion, the court concluded, in two separate orders, that it had jurisdiction and. ordered a custody hearing.\nNo counsel for plaintiff appellee.\nReid, Lewis & Deese, by Renny W. Deese, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 533
}