Case Name: ASHBY R. ROTH, VINCENT P. ROTH and ASHBY D. ROTH, minors by their guardian ad litem ASHBY R. ROTH v. PATRICIA A. PARSONS
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1972-11-22
Citations: 16 N.C. App. 646
Docket Number: No. 7226SC609
Parties: ASHBY R. ROTH, VINCENT P. ROTH and ASHBY D. ROTH, minors by their guardian ad litem ASHBY R. ROTH v. PATRICIA A. PARSONS
Judges: Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
ASHBY R. ROTH, VINCENT P. ROTH and ASHBY D. ROTH, minors by their guardian ad litem ASHBY R. ROTH v. PATRICIA A. PARSONS
No. 7226SC609
(Filed 22 November 1972)
Parent and Child § 4— alienation of affection of parent — no right of action
Minor children may not maintain an action for the alienation of the affection of their father.
Appeal by plaintiffs Vincent P. Roth and Ashby D. Roth from McLean, Judge, at the Regular 22 May 1972 Civil “C” Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court.
In this action, commenced on 14 March 1972, plaintiff Ashby R. Roth seeks to recover for (1) alienation of affection of her husband by defendant and (2) criminal conversation by defendant with her husband. In a third cause of action the minor plaintiffs seek to recover for the alienation of affection of their father by defendant.
As to the third cause of action defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. Following a hearing the court sustained defendant’s motion and from judgment dismissing their action, the minor plaintiffs appealed.
Richard A. Cohan for plaintiff appellant.
Wade and Carmichael by R. C. Carmichael, Jr., for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
BRITT, Judge.
We hold that the court properly dismissed the third cause of action. Although appellants attempt to distinguish their case from Henson v. Thomas, 231 N.C. 173, 56 S.E. 2d 432 (1949), we think the legal principles1 in the cases are the same and that the majority opinion in Henson is controlling here. For that reason, the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.