Domestic Violence Protective Orders (DVPOs), commonly known as “50B orders,” are some of the most powerful legal protections available in North Carolina. These orders can force an abusive partner to leave the home, cut off all forms of contact, and even provide temporary custody of children. Because they carry such serious and immediate consequences, judges must apply the law with precision—ensuring that victims are protected while also safeguarding due process.
The recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in Jay v. Jay (COA 24-145, filed March 5, 2025) highlights how trial courts handle conflicting testimony, altered evidence, and their duty to make specific findings of fact when issuing DVPOs.
Background of the Case
Yanli Jay (plaintiff) sought a DVPO against her estranged husband, Gary Jay (defendant). The couple married in 2016 but separated in 2022. In her motion, Yanli alleged multiple incidents of sexual abuse in 2022 and 2023.
At the August 2023 hearing:
- Plaintiff testified that Gary forced sexual contact on several dates, including March 28 and May 2, 2023. She described physical injury, pain lasting weeks, and verbal abuse in which Gary often called her demeaning names.
- Defendant testified that the encounters were consensual and that Yanli had even expressed affection and given him gifts during their meetings. He acknowledged sex occurred but described it as mutual and voluntary.
The trial court found by the greater weight of the evidence that domestic violence had occurred and entered a one-year DVPO.
The Dispute Over Text Messages
A key issue was a text message exchange admitted as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. Yanli presented a screenshot showing Gary making sexual comments, but later evidence revealed that part of the conversation had been omitted. Specifically, messages where Yanli told Gary she still loved him were left out.
The trial court acknowledged that the exhibit was incomplete but ruled it was not willfully altered to mislead and that even without the exhibit, sufficient evidence supported the DVPO.
The Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal, Gary argued that:
- The DVPO was not supported by competent evidence.
- The trial court improperly adopted Yanli’s typewritten statement as its findings of fact instead of making its own.
- The altered text messages undermined the credibility of the evidence.
Majority Opinion (Judge Arrowood, joined by Judge Wood)
- The Court affirmed the DVPO.
- It stressed that the trial court heard testimony directly, observed credibility, and was in the best position to weigh conflicting accounts.
- Even if Exhibit 1 was excluded, Yanli’s testimony and written statement provided ample evidence to support the DVPO.
Dissent (Judge Carpenter)
- The dissent criticized the trial court for incorporating Yanli’s unverified statement instead of making independent findings as required by Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Judge Carpenter warned that allowing courts to adopt party-prepared statements risks delegating the judicial fact-finding duty and undermines appellate review.
- He would have vacated the order and remanded for proper findings.
Key Legal Takeaways
- Competent Evidence Standard
- On appeal, DVPO findings are upheld if supported by competent evidence. Trial courts get deference on witness credibility.
- Altered Evidence
- Even if a party presents incomplete or misleading exhibits, a DVPO may still stand if there is sufficient other evidence. However, credibility concerns remain significant.
- Rule 52 Findings
- Trial courts must make their own findings of fact in one-year DVPOs. Incorporating unverified statements is risky and may not survive appellate scrutiny in other cases.
- Split Opinions Matter
- The dissent underscores ongoing tension in North Carolina law about how carefully trial courts must craft DVPO orders. This could signal future challenges or even Supreme Court review.
Lessons for Families and Practitioners
- For Petitioners: Be prepared to provide specific testimony and corroborating evidence. Do not alter or omit parts of exhibits, as credibility is crucial.
- For Respondents: Challenge vague findings or reliance on unverified written statements. Highlight inconsistencies or altered evidence.
- For Attorneys: Ensure trial courts make detailed findings that can withstand appellate review. When representing clients, emphasize the evidentiary and procedural requirements under Chapter 50B.
Conclusion
Jay v. Jay reinforces the high stakes of DVPO proceedings. The Court of Appeals’ split decision shows both the strength of victim testimony in securing protection and the ongoing debate about judicial duties under Rule 52. For North Carolina families, this case is a reminder of the importance of competent evidence, careful preparation, and skilled legal advocacy.
At Adkins Law, PLLC, we help clients across the Lake Norman and Charlotte region navigate sensitive domestic violence cases with compassion and precision. Whether you are seeking protection or defending your rights, our team is ready to guide you through the process.
📞 Contact Adkins Law in Huntersville today to schedule a confidential consultation.
Leave a Reply