{
  "id": 8527032,
  "name": "DOROTHY D. COPELAND v. ARTHUR D. COPELAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Copeland v. Copeland",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 831DC546",
  "first_page": "276",
  "last_page": "280",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 276"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5043.5",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(d)(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 S.E. 2d 763",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521165
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0345-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 7961,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.817,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9054886375001683e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8453975502046644
    },
    "sha256": "a152fa0b806a7d96caac4b5b6d3e287e59fe8a771fc94ff639b2827702c2aead",
    "simhash": "1:c74fd6273fccf7bb",
    "word_count": 1311
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Braswell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DOROTHY D. COPELAND v. ARTHUR D. COPELAND"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nEnforcement of out-of-state child custody orders is governed by the terms of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 50A-1 through -25, adopted in North Carolina in 1979. Under the UCCJA, a court may properly enforce a child custody order only if the jurisdictional requirements of G.S. \u00a7 50A-3 and the notice requirements of G.S. \u00a7 50A-4 and \u00a7 50A-5 are met, see G.S. \u00a7 50A-13. States which have adopted the UCCJA must enforce an out-of-state custody order which substantially complies with the terms of the UCCJA, regardless of whether the state issuing the order has adopted the UCCJA, G.S. \u00a7 50A-13, Nabors v. Farrell 53 N.C. App. 345, 280 S.E. 2d 763 (1981).\nWe note that the trial court determined the question of enforceability of the Massachusetts order based on whether it complied with the terms of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2) (1976), rather than the provisions of the UCCJA. This was error. The trial court apparently used G.S. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2) as a guideline because of the terms of G.S. \u00a7 50A-25, which states that \u201c[nothing in . . . [the UCCJA] shall be interpreted to limit the authority of the court to issue an interlocutory order under the provisions of G.S. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2) . . .\u201d G.S. \u00a7 50A-25 merely makes it clear that passage of the UCCJA in North Carolina did not eliminate the power of our trial courts to issue temporary custody orders under G.S. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2). However, nothing in the terms of G.S. \u00a7 50A-25 in any way changes the prerequisites to enforcement of an out-of-state custody order under the UCCJA. It is clear that states may set their own standards for enforcement of in-state custody orders, as in G.S. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2), which are different from the UCCJA standards. The fact that rules concerning enforcement of a state\u2019s own custody decrees may vary from the UCCJA does not change the requirements for enforcement of another state\u2019s custody orders under the UCCJA. See, e.g., 9 U.L.A. Mat., Fam. & H. Laws, UCCJA, Section 4, Official Comment (1979): \u201cAs to persons in the forum state, the general law of the state applies; others are notified in accordance with section 5.\u201d\nThe issue before us, therefore, is whether the Massachusetts court custody order substantially complies with the terms of the UCCJA. Under G.S. \u00a7 50A-3(a)(l), a state has subject matter jurisdiction and may properly decide child custody matters if the state \u201c. . . (ii) had been the child\u2019s home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State because of the child\u2019s removal or retention by a person claiming the child\u2019s custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this State. . . .\u201d The facts clearly show that defendant\u2019s children were residents of Massachusetts until he took them to North Carolina in September of 1982, and that the plaintiff remained in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts courts, therefore, had subject matter jurisdiction under G.S. \u00a7 50A-3 to enter a valid child custody order.\nWe find, however, that the Massachusetts court did not comply with the notice provisions of G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 50A-4 and -5 and, therefore, did not obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant. Under G.S. \u00a7 50A-4, \u201c[bjefore making a decree under this Chapter reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given to the contestants, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated, and any person who has physical custody of the child.\u201d Defendant clearly had a right to notice under the Act before the Massachusetts court entered its temporary order. The Massachusetts order also fails to meet the requirements of G.S. \u00a7 50A-5, which provides that the notice required under G.S. \u00a7 50A-4 \u201cshall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice and shall be served in the same manner as the manner of service of process set out in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4. . . .\u201d Plaintiff concedes that defendant was not served with process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is clear that \u201c[sjtrict compliance with sections 4 and 5 is essential for ... a custody decree[\u2019s] . . . recognition and enforcement in other states under sections 12, 13 and 15.\u201d 9 U.L.A. Mat., Fam. & H. Laws, supra. While the Massachusetts court\u2019s failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant requires us to reverse the trial court\u2019s order, we commend the trial court\u2019s efforts to comply with the spirit of the UCCJA, by discouraging unilateral removals of children from their custodial parent. Because we hold that the trial court\u2019s order must be reversed, we need not reach defendant\u2019s other assignments of error.\nReversed.\nJudges Arnold and Braswell concur.\n. \u00a7 5043.5(d)(2). If the circumstances of the case render it appropriate, upon gaining jurisdiction of the minor child the court may enter orders for the temporary custody and support of the child, pending the service of process or notice as herein provided.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwards & Edwards, by Walter G. Edwards, Jr., for plaintiff",
      "W. T. Culpepper, III, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOROTHY D. COPELAND v. ARTHUR D. COPELAND\nNo. 831DC546\n(Filed 1 May 1984)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 26\u2014 determination of question of enforceability of foreign custody order on basis of compliance with North Carolina statute rather than provisions of UCCJA \u2014error\nThe trial court erred in determining the question of enforceability of a Massachusetts custody order based on whether it complied with the terms of G.S. 50-13.5(d)(2) rather than the provisions of the UCCJA since the fact that rules concerning enforcement of a state\u2019s own custody decree may vary from the UCCJA (G.S. 50A-25) does not change the requirements for enforcement of another state\u2019s custody order under the UCCJA.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 26\u2014 failure of foreign custody order to comply with terms of UCCJA \u2014 lack of notice\nA Massachusetts court custody order did not substantially comply with the terms of the UCCJA and the Massachusetts court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant where the Massachusetts court did not comply with the notice provisions of G.S. 50A-4 and 60A-5 in that defendant was not served with process pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4. G.S. 60A-3 and G.S. 50A-3(a)(l)(ii).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Parker, Judge. Order entered 3 February 1983 in Perquimans County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 April 1984.\nPlaintiff and defendant were married in December, 1973 in Massachusetts, where they lived until they separated in June, 1982. On 5 September 1982, defendant moved to North Carolina, taking the parties\u2019 three minor children with him. No official court order concerning custody of the children had been entered, but the parties had orally agreed that the children would remain with plaintiff, and defendant concedes that he took the children to North Carolina without plaintiffs knowledge or consent. On 13 September 1982, plaintiff sought a temporary custody order in the Probate Court of Plymouth, Massachusetts. On that same date the probate court entered an ex parte order granting temporary custody to plaintiff. Defendant was not notified prior to entry of the order, nor does the record show that he was served with process at any time thereafter.\nOn 12 November 1982, plaintiff filed a petition in Perquimans County District Court, seeking an order enforcing the Massachusetts temporary custody order. Following a hearing at which both parties were present and represented by counsel, the trial court entered an order enforcing the Massachusetts custody award and granting plaintiff $668.75 in travel expenses and $443.68 in attorney fees. The trial court\u2019s order provided that defendant was to make the children available to plaintiff on 18 November 1982, and that he would be jailed if he failed to comply.\nUpon entry of the order enforcing the Massachusetts court\u2019s temporary award of custody to plaintiff, defendant appealed.\nEdwards & Edwards, by Walter G. Edwards, Jr., for plaintiff\nW. T. Culpepper, III, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0276-01",
  "first_page_order": 308,
  "last_page_order": 312
}