- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
PRICE v. HOWARD
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Stacy L. Price and defendant Robin Howard lived together from approximately November 1985 until sometime in 1989 without marrying. During their relationship, a child, Dominique Price, was born on June 10, 1986. Plaintiff held out the child as his biological child, and the child believed plaintiff was her father. After the couple separated in 1989, plaintiff became an equal or primary caretaker of Dominique. Defendant moved to Eden, North Carolina in 1991, while Dominique remained with plaintiff in Durham. In 1992, plaintiff sought sole custody, but defendant denied plaintiff’s paternity. A court-ordered paternity test excluded plaintiff as the biological father. The trial court appointed an advocate for the child to represent her best interests. On March 29, 1995, the trial court granted defendant sole custody, finding both parties fit but concluding that plaintiff was not the biological father and thus custody should follow the natural parent absent unfitness or neglect.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a custody dispute between a natural parent and a person who holds out a child as his biological child but is excluded by paternity testing should be decided by the "best interests of the child" standard or by the constitutional paramount right of the natural parent to custody.
- Whether the trial court erred in finding defendant fit and proper and not neglectful of the child.
- Whether plaintiff was properly ordered to share in uninsured therapy costs for the child.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s finding that defendant was fit and proper to care for the child and had not neglected the child, arguing these findings were unsupported by evidence.
- Plaintiff contended that custody should be awarded to him based on the child’s best interests, given his role as caretaker and the child’s relationship with him.
- Plaintiff argued the trial court erred in requiring him to share in all uninsured therapy costs for the child.
Defendant's Arguments
- Defendant denied plaintiff’s paternity and relied on the court-ordered paternity test excluding plaintiff as the biological father.
- Defendant argued that under controlling precedent, the natural parent’s constitutional right to custody prevails absent unfitness or neglect.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) | Established that absent a finding of unfitness or neglect, the natural parent's constitutional right to custody is paramount over others claiming custody. | The court applied this rule to affirm that defendant, as the natural parent, was entitled to custody despite plaintiff’s caretaking role, since there was no evidence of unfitness or neglect. |
| Blackley v. Blackley, 285 N.C. 358, 204 S.E.2d 678 (1974) | Supports the binding nature of trial court findings when supported by evidence. | The court relied on this precedent to uphold the trial court's findings that defendant was fit and proper and had not neglected the child. |
| Boyd v. Boyd, 81 N.C. App. 71, 343 S.E.2d 581 (1986) | Parental obligation includes support for minor children, including therapy costs. | The court used this precedent to reverse the trial court’s order requiring plaintiff to share all uninsured therapy costs, recognizing limits on such obligations. |
| Lambert v. Riddick, 120 N.C. App. 480, 462 S.E.2d 835 (1995); Bivens v. Cottle, 120 N.C. App. 467, 462 S.E.2d 829 (1995); Speaks v. Fanek, 122 N.C. App. 389, 470 S.E.2d 82 (1996) | Reinforce the principle that the natural parent's constitutional right to custody prevails absent unfitness or neglect. | These cases were cited to support the court’s adherence to the legal standard favoring natural parents in custody disputes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first acknowledged that both plaintiff and defendant were found fit and proper caretakers, supported by ample evidence, and thus those findings were binding on appeal. The central legal question was whether custody should be determined by the "best interests of the child" standard or by the constitutional right of the natural parent. The court relied heavily on the precedent set in Petersen v. Rogers, which holds that absent a finding of unfitness or neglect, the natural parent's paramount constitutional right to custody prevails over others claiming custody. Because plaintiff was excluded as the biological father by a court-ordered paternity test and there was no evidence of defendant's unfitness or neglect, the trial court correctly awarded custody to defendant. The court also found error in the trial court's order requiring plaintiff to share all uninsured therapy costs, reversing that portion based on established parental support obligations.
Holding and Implications
The court's final ruling was to affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s order. Specifically, the court affirmed the award of sole custody to defendant, the natural parent, based on the constitutional principle that a natural parent's custody rights prevail absent unfitness or neglect. However, the court reversed the portion of the order requiring plaintiff to share all uninsured therapy costs for the child.
The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the trial court's custody determination favoring the natural parent and to limit the financial obligations of the non-biological parent with respect to therapy costs. The opinion does not establish new precedent but applies and reinforces existing constitutional principles regarding parental custody rights.
Parent and Child § 24 (NCI4th) — custody dispute between natural parent and care giver — right of parent to custody A custody dispute between a natural parent and a person who receives a minor child into his home and openly holds out that child as his biological child, but who was excluded as the father by a court-ordered paternity test, is not to be determined according to the "best interests of the child" standard; rather, the court should apply the rule of Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, that, absent a finding that natural parents are unfit or have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail.
Am Jur 2d, Parent and Child §§ 23, 28.
Right of putative father to custody of illegitimate child. 45 ALR3d 216.
Judge JOHN concurring in the result.
Judge GREENE dissenting.
MARTIN, Mark D., Judge.
Plaintiff, Stacy L. Price, appeals from the trial court's order granting defendant, Robin Howard, sole custody of Dominique Price.
Plaintiff and defendant lived together from approximately November 1985 until some time in 1989. The couple never married. A child, Dominique Price, was born to defendant on 10 June 1986, during the time plaintiff and defendant lived together in Durham, North Carolina. From the time of her birth, plaintiff held out the child as his biological child and the child believed plaintiff was her biological father. Plaintiff and defendant separated during 1989, with defendant remaining in the Durham area, until the summer of 1991, when defendant moved to Eden, North Carolina. After the separation in 1989, plaintiff became an "equal caretaker" of the child and in some instances the "primary" caretaker. After defendant's 1991 move to Eden, Dominique remained with plaintiff in Durham. In 1992, plaintiff sought sole custody of the child, at which time defendant denied plaintiff was the child's biological father. A court-ordered paternity test excluded plaintiff as the father. At the request of plaintiff, joined in by defendant, the trial court appointed Kristi Olson (Olson) "to serve as Advocate for Dominique." The order of appointment granted Olson "standing to do any act consistent with representing the best interests of the child." She was to be notified of "all hearings, proceedings, interviews, depositions and the like, and shall have [the] right to be present at all these." Finally, Olson was directed to "report to the Court as necessary, with copies of written reports to the respective attorneys of the parties, as circumstances require."
On 29 March 1995 the trial court entered its final order in this action. In that order, the trial court concluded that although "both the Plaintiff and Defendant are fit and proper persons to exercise the exclusive care and custody of the minor child," "it is in the minor child's best interest that she be in the primary physical custody of the Plaintiff." Nonetheless, the trial court concluded that because there was no evidence defendant was unfit or had neglected the child and because, as the trial court implicitly found, plaintiff was not the biological father of the child, the ruling in Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) did not permit an award of custody to plaintiff. The trial court ordered that defendant be "awarded the exclusive care, custody and control of" the child.
On appeal plaintiff first alleges the trial court erred in finding defendant was a "fit and proper" person to care for the child and had not neglected the child because the findings were not supported by the evidence. The record, however, discloses ample evidence to support the trial court's findings and, accordingly, they are binding on appeal, Blackley v. Blackley, 285 N.C. 358, 362, 204 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1974).
The question for resolution, therefore, is whether a custody dispute between a natural parent and a person who receives a minor child into his home and openly holds out that child as his biological child is to be determined according to the "best interests of the child" standard.
In Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901, our Supreme Court held "absent a finding that [natural] parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally-protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail." Id. at 403-404, 445 S.E.2d at 905. See also Lambert v. Riddick, 120 N.C. App. 480, 482, 462 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1995); Bivens v. Cottle, 120 N.C. App. 467, 468, 462 S.E.2d 829, 830 (1995), disc. review allowed, 342 N.C. 651, 467 S.E.2d 704, appeal retained and disc. review allowed, 342 N.C. 651, 467 S.E.2d 898 (1996) ; Speaks v. Fanek, 122 N.C. App. 389, ___, 470 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1996).
In the case before us, the evidence tends to show plaintiff and defendant were involved in an intimate relationship before and after the child's birth. During the course of their relationship, the unmarried couple lived together with the child. Because, absent a finding of unfitness or neglect, "the constitutionally-protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail," Petersen, 337 N.C. at 403-404, 445 S.E.2d at 905, the trial court did not err in awarding custody to defendant.
In plaintiff's final assignment of error, he argues the trial court erred in finding he must share in "all uninsured costs for [the child's] therapy. . . ." We agree and, accordingly, reverse that portion of the order. See Boyd v. Boyd, 81 N.C. App. 71, 77-78, 343 S.E.2d 581, 585-586 (1986) (support for minor children is a parental obligation).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Judge JOHN concurs in the result with separate opinion.
Judge GREENE dissents.
Alert