Penland v. Harris
North Carolina Court of Appeals
520 S.E.2d 105 (1999)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
After Angela Harris (defendant) gave birth to her daughter, she and her daughter lived with her mother, Brenda Penland (plaintiff), and the mother’s husband, David Penland (plaintiff), while Angela earned a nursing degree. During that time, the Penlands claimed they assumed parental roles, providing the child with food, private schooling, and healthcare, and ensuring a stable environment. When the child was almost six, Angela married Andrew Harris and took the child with her to live with her at Andrew’s apartment. The Penlands had little contact with Angela. Unhappy with the new arrangement, the Penlands filed an action seeking joint custody of the child, claiming that they should have custody and control at least 50 percent of the time. They argued such a custody award was in the child’s best interests. As support, they expressed their disapproval of Andrew, Andrew’s residence, and the Harrises’ babysitters, and expressed concern that Angela might not permit the child to attend the private school or church she had previously attended. Angela moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that because she was the child’s biological parent and was fit to care for the child, the Penlands did not have a viable claim for joint custody. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Penlands’ petition. The Penlands appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

