Attorney Caitlyn Samantha Stubbs's Legal Cases

Child custody

Grandparent Custody Case

N/A

OUTCOME: Custody to Grandparents

Ms. Stubbs represented Mr. and Ms. O in a custody and visitation case surrounding their granddaughter. Mr. and Mrs. O were the maternal grandparents of a three-year-old girl with whom they had a v ... ery close relationship. The child’s mother agreed that Mr. and Ms. O should have primary physical custody of the girl in part due to the mother’s heroin addiction and two other young children. The child’s father disagreed. Overcoming the parental presumption proved difficult, requiring that Mr. and Mrs. O be placed on a lower level than either parent despite the mother's agreement with the custodial arrangement. At trial, Ms. Stubbs introduced evidence that the child had suffered numerous and recurring medical issues while under her father’s care, and exhibited inappropriate and over-sexualized behavior inconsistent with her young age. On cross-examination Ms. Stubbs was able to conclusively establish that the father’s fiancée had heroin addiction issues (similar to the the child's mother) and was not permitted to see her own daughter without her mother’s consent. The court ruled in favor of Mr. and Ms. O, granting them joint legal and primary physical custody of their granddaughter with visitation to the parents.

Child support

Child Support Case

N/A

OUTCOME: Child Support Award for Mother

Ms. Stubbs represented a mother, Ms. A, in a child custody, visitation, and support case against her ex-husband, Mr. A. Ms. A was pregnant with a child from a previous relationship when she met and su ... bsequently married Mr. A. Ms. A then gave birth to the child—a boy—during the parties' marriage. She later also gave birth to a daughter, conceived with Mr. A. Later, after the parties separated but before they divorced, Mr. A executed a sworn statement legitimizing Ms. A's son under North Carolina law. Mr. A’s statement denoted that he was the natural father of the boy and was married to the boy's mother. The statement was executed in an effort to change the boy's name and legitimize him for inheritance purposes, which would effectively make the boy a child born of the marriage and entitled to all the protections, rights, and obligations that his sister, who was the biological child of Mr. A and Ms. A, had. At trial Ms. Stubbs was able to outline to the court the similarities between the legitimation statute in North Carolina and an acknowledgment of paternity for child support purposes under Virginia law, relying on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. On direct examination, Ms. A testified that, prior to the dissolution of their marriage, the parties had actively discussed Mr. A's adopting her son. She further testified that Mr. A had begun ostracizing her son after the marriage had dissolved and Ms. A had petitioned for child support. The court ruled in Ms. A’s favor, finding that (1) Mr. A had conclusively acknowledged that he was the father of the boy (despite knowing he was not) under North Carolina law, that (2) but for the mother’s move to Virginia, child support would have been payable to the mother under North Carolina law had she sought it there, and that (3) Mr. A was therefore obligated to pay Ms. A child support for both children.

Caitlyn Samantha Stubbs's Legal Cases (2)

Grandparent Custody Case

Child Support Case