Court Opinion

ID: 9564367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:59:15.092446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:22.671780
License: Public Domain

BRYANT, Judge,
dissenting.
As I believe Mr. Lunsford’s wilful neglect of the natural and legal obligations of parental care and support owed to his daughter Candice constituted wilful abandonment as defined by the law of this State, I respectfully dissent.
Whether a parent has abandoned his child within the meaning of section 31A-2 of the North Carolina General Statutes is a question of fact to be decided by a jury, or judge acting as the finder of fact. See *135Hixson v. Krebs, 136 N.C. App. 183, 188-89, 523 S.E.2d 684, 687 (1999). In the original appeal of this case, the North Carolina Supreme Court specifically instructed the trial court on remand to make ultimate findings of fact on three issues: (1) whether Mr. Lunsford abandoned Candice; (2) if so, whether Mr. Lunsford resumed care and maintenance of Candice at least one year prior to her death and continued the same until the date of her death; and (3) whether Mr. Lunsford “substantially complied” with any and all child support orders. In re Lunsford, 354 N.C. 571, 571, 556 S.E.2d 292, 292 (2001). The trial court, however, on remand labeled its findings of fact on these issues as conclusions of law. Fortunately, the trial court’s mislabeling of its ultimate findings is not fatal to the order as these findings of fact are clearly stated and distinguishable from the trial court’s conclusion of law, contained in its mandate, that Mr. Lunsford was barred under section 31A-2 from sharing in his daughter’s estate based upon his abandonment of his daughter. See In re Faircloth, 153 N.C. App. 565, 569, 571 S.E.2d 65, 68 (2002) (findings of fact mislabeled as conclusions of law did not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52 where they were clearly stated and easily distinguishable). Although the trial court could, and indeed should, have made findings that were more comprehensive and reflective of the evidence, I conclude that the evidentiary findings which were made are sufficient to support an ultimate finding of wilful abandonment based upon wilful neglect of parental duties.
Wilful abandonment under section 31A-2 may take the form of “wilful neglect and refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of parental care and support.” Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 501, 126 S.E.2d 597, 608 (1962). Thus, where a parent “withholds his presence, his love, his care, the opportunity to display filial affection, and wilfully neglects to lend support and maintenance, such parent relinquishes all parental claims and abandons the child.” Id. “To constitute an abandonment... it is not necessary that a parent absent himself continuously from the child . . . , nor even that he cease to feel any concern for its interest.” Id. at 503, 126 S.E.2d at 609; see Hixson, 136 N.C. App. at 188-89, 523 S.E.2d at 687.
In this case, the trial court found Mr. Lunsford left the marital home in 1982 because he “was an alcoholic and too immature for responsibilities of family life.” Between the separation and Candice’s death in 1999, Mr. Lunsford visited only sporadically, occasionally spending time with his daughter after his mother had arranged for visitation, and also made an appearance at her high school graduation. *136Mr. Lunsford did not contribute financially to Candice’s care and maintenance, except to buy her clothes on a single occasion. It is, however, noted that Candice’s mother also refused any contributions from Mr. Lunsford. As the majority recognizes, no error is assigned to the trial court’s findings and they are binding on appeal. Further, this Court noted more specifically in the previous appeal of this case that Mr. Lunsford visited Candice less than twelve times in almost seventeen years and that he paid less than $100.00 toward her support and maintenance. In re Lunsford, 143 N.C. App. 646, 648, 547 S.E.2d 483, 484 (2001), vacated and remanded, 354 N.C. 571, 556 S.E.2d 292 (2002).
These findings show that Mr. Lunsford made only extremely limited and sporadic attempts to provide any care and maintenance to Candice, otherwise totally abandoning her for almost seventeen years. The duties of care and maintenance in section 31A-2 are specific obligations of a parent, the neglect of which can possibly result in both civil and criminal proceedings. These separate duties define a parent’s overall responsibilities to his minor child, and both requirements must be met. See Davis v. Trus Joint MacMillan, 148 N.C. App. 248, 253, 558 S.E.2d 210, 214 (2002) (parent must prove he has resumed both care and maintenance of his child to obtain workers’ compensation death benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-40). The duty of care requires a presence in a child’s life: to show love and affection, as well as providing support and maintenance. See Pratt, 257 N.C. at 501, 126 S.E.2d at 608. The duty of support and maintenance is a legal duty of the parent to his child. See N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(b) (2001) (absent other circumstances, parents are primarily liable for the support of their minor children); see also Wells v. Wells, 227 N.C. 614, 616-18, 44 S.E.2d 31, 33-34 (1947) (discussing the moral and legal duty of a parent to support and maintain a minor child). Maintenance and support require that the parental responsibility to provide food, clothing, and shelter be met, see In re Adcock, 69 N.C. App. 222, 225, 316 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1984) (failure to provide stable living environment and proper food and clothing is clearly evidence of neglect that cannot be ignored), and the trial court’s findings reflect that in fact these requirements were not met by Mr. Lunsford in this case. Neither logic nor the record in this case supports an assertion that a parent who visits a child less than twelve times in almost seventeen years, provides less than $100.00 toward her maintenance and support, buys her clothes on only one occasion, and attends her high school graduation is providing the parental duty of care and maintenance as contemplated in our statute. Simply stated, Mr. Lunsford’s *137actions do not meet the standard of care and responsibility to which a parent is obligated.
Thus, the trial court’s findings conclusively establish Mr. Lunsford wilfully neglected his parental duties and therefore abandoned his daughter within the meaning of section 31A-2. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s order denying Mr. Lunsford from sharing in Candice’s estate.