Greer v. Greer
North Carolina Court of Appeals
624 S.E.2d 423 (2006)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In January 2002, Jo Ann Grady Greer (plaintiff) and Edward Allen Greer (defendant) had one daughter. By August 2002, the Greers had separated. Jo Ann filed for custody of the daughter. Edward filed a counterclaim for custody. In 2004, the district court held a hearing on the matter of custody. The district court found that Jo Ann had multiple mental health issues; had difficulty controlling her emotions; and had been violent toward her older son, her first husband, and Edward. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that Jo Ann’s mental health may adversely affect her ability to parent the daughter. The district court found that Edward’s maturity level was questionable but that he was relatively well-adjusted, fully employed, and had a family support system that could help him care for the daughter. Following the hearing, the district court held that Jo Ann and Edward were both fit for custody and that the daughter’s best interests would be served by awarding joint custody. The district court judge stated in his opinion that (1) the court took judicial notice of the fact that a natural bond occurs between a mother and child and (2) because the child was only 28 months old and female, placing her with Edward rather than her mother would disadvantage her development. Edward appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Geer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.