*1 OF APPEALS Latch v. Latch main- neglected not the had to prove respondent was sufficient to Mr. in manner to his We believe degree. tain Thomas suitable income, his Mr. Thomas’ considering that the evidence shows his him funds which are adequate has guardian provided owns non-income incompetent produc- We note that support. may selling want to consider this property. guardian real ing way in such a to of the sale as property proceeds and invest produce income for his ward.
Judges Arnold and concur. Braswell DALE
ADA JEAN LATCH v. LATCH GEORGE No. 8212DC768 to § Error matter of motion and 6.3— —denial right of immediate dismiss —no lack Denial of a motion is, therefore, right not im- mediately appealable. 23.5; § Alimony § of child in another Divorce Infants 5— —subject jurisdicition state of an action State have The courts this physically present in child who is of a 50A-3(a)(2)(i) provisions and the of G.S. “substantial 50A-3(a)(2)(ii) provisions where the evidence” of G.S. separation agreement, resides in under a life; mother with her most of her child has lived this State Pennsylvania; father and taken when she was abducted two approximately one-half of the and the child resided years Furthermore, parents’ separation her abduction. that had where it authorized under G.S. was also jurisdiction on the to exercise declined in- appropriate forum the best the more that this State is terest of the child that in the result. Hedrick COURT OF *2 Hair, 23 Orders entered defendant March 1982 and 8 1982 in District April CUMBERLAND May Heard in the par- sued of and for the support Plaintiff to obtain 1976, child, old. married in parties ties’ now five When born, lived in they lived in where the child was they January, state until in 1980. The separated entered into agreement gave plaintiff plain- and the child moved to North and lived with 1980, they in when Fayetteville September, tiffs mother until Pennsylvania and there in one of the houses went back to resided 1981, they when returned to August, owned until parties Fayetteville. 1981, in a action
In defendant instituted September, in Penn- therein that alleging plaintiff living the child were sylvania, even he knew she and Carolina, a of the suit copy did not receive plaintiff 1981, while February 5 December until 26 On papers Fayetteville, de- and the child were at a center shopping tiff the child and took her back fendant abducted later, him. filed this action. plaintiff Two weeks suit, contested In defendant responding plaintiffs matter; hearings but after two jurisdiction subject of the Court’s concluded, motion, or- in two separate the court on defendant’s ders, custody hearing. that it had ordered and. counsel plaintiff appellee.
No Deese, Deese, Reid, W. by Renny Lewis & for defendant pellant.
PHILLIPS, Judge. [1] Denial of a motion order, lack of v. Coble Teachy immediately appealable. and therefore not right, (1982). However, 324, Dairies, Inc., 293 S.E. 2d 306 N.C. issue, which of the early resolution to facilitate an aas we will treat defendant’s welfare requires, the child’s 21(a), Proc. App. Rules N.C. of certiorari writ OF [2] Defendant contends the North The Uniform Child trial court never had Custody Jurisdic jurisdic grounds tion Act lists four alternative of these grounds claim falls under two tion. 50A-3. Plaintiffs for jurisdiction. authorizes if: custody matter
of a child court of this State of the child that a It is in the best interest child and the child’s because contestant, have and at least one or the child parents, *3 (ii) State, is there with this connection significant relevant to the substantial evidence available in this State care, training, per- protection, or future present child’s .... relationships sonal life in North and therefore lived most of her Carolina
Plaintiff has the child Although with this state. connection significant has a of her life in twenty-two months the first spent of the two one-half approximately in North Carolina has resided her ab- parents’ separation that under The child’s duction. would The child resides North Carolina. agreement, Under if she had not been abducted. in North still be circumstances, the child these
this state. into North that the child had settled
The facts in this state support her mother lives and that residence that there is available statutory requirement future or present relevant to the evidence “substantial care, . .” The . . relationships training, personal protection, it had under concluded properly trial 50A-3(a)(2). 50A-3(a)(4)if: under is also authorized Jurisdiction exercise has declined to . . . another state It is on the (ii) child, and to determine forum propriate court assume child that this interest of the in the best COURT OF APPEALS Radford v. Norris defendant,
In a letter court stated it was relinquishing jurisdiction to the North Carolina court. This was jurisdictional done to avoid a conflict that would have created dif- courts, ficulties for the the parties and the and because the Pennsylvania court the opinion that this state is the more appropriate forum under the circumstances. agree. We
The orders appealed from are therefore concurs. WELLS Judge HEDRICK concurs in result.
Judge HEDRICK the result. however,
I concur in the result reached the majority; I believe the appeal should be dismissed since it is from an in- terlocutory order not affecting a substantial right. To “treat 21(a)” defendant’s appeal as writ of certiorari pursuant case, frustrates the expeditious administration of justice in this encourages appeals interlocutory orders which causes unnecessary and delay unreasonable and expense. *4 EARL v.
ROBERT RADFORD JAMES LLOYD NORRIS ANN and BECKY NOR- RIS
No. 8210SC880 Damages consequences § 9— failure to instruct on of doctrine avoidable error failing give requested trial court erred instruction on the doc- consequences of
trine avoidable where the evidence tended to show that sought orthopedic surgeon prescribed tiff had medical treatment from an who part injury program of back exercises as the treatment for his back plaintiff stopped repeatedly doing the exercises even he was ad- orthopedic surgeon vised to continue to do the exercises. Farmer, Judgment defendants 31 March 1982 in Heard Superior entered WAKE in the June