You will see how nuanced custody decisions can be, why it is imperative to pay special attention to every fact in family law cases involving child custody, and how even the smallest details can make a big difference.

Case Background and Procedural History

In Fairley v. Matelski, the case revolved around a child custody dispute over a minor child diagnosed with autism. Even though the divorce happened in California, where custody was granted to the mother, the parties have relocated to North Carolina, and the order was moved to Henderson County in 2012.

A year later, in 2013, the father got an emergency custody order and temporary custody of the child. But after hearings held in 2014, the first-instance court awarded joint legal custody, granting the father primary physical custody.

In 2022, the mother filed to modify the custody order to hold the father in contempt of the prior order.

In 2023, the trial court determined that the prior joint custody arrangement was no longer suitable. The court granted the father sole legal and physical custody.

The mother appealed the decision, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals took the case.

Legal Issue and Standard of Review in N.C. Child Custody Appeals

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court correctly granted the father sole legal custody, meaning he has the exclusive right to make major decisions about the child’s welfare. The mother’s central argument was that there was not enough evidence to support the court’s findings.

In general, North Carolina’s appellate courts (which review lower court decisions) apply a deferential standard of review in custody cases, giving significant weight to the trial court’s rulings. However, the trial court’s findings of fact are binding only if supported by adequate and substantial evidence. If any findings are not challenged on appeal, they are presumed to be correct and accepted without further scrutiny.

Furthermore, the custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, meaning only those that are clearly unreasonable will be overturned.

All custody decisions must prioritize the child’s best interests, as stated in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2.

Court’s Decision Affirming Sole Custody and Visitation Limitations

The second instance court found that the trial court’s findings supported the decision to grant sole custody to the father. The evidence showed that the child lived with the father from 2013 and made substantial progress, both personally and academically, moving from special education to regular courses and even earning excellent grades in some advanced courses.

Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that the father showed great care by attending the child’s therapy and creating a stable home environment, which was crucial to the child’s progress.

The first instance court showed that co-parenting was impossible. The parents had frequent disagreements about all major decisions in the child’s life—education, treatment, and care.

After reviewing all of the evidence, the North Carolina Court of Appeals confirmed the first instance decision. The primary reason was that many findings were unchallenged and became binding even on appeal. Those findings clearly demonstrated that the decision to grant sole custody to the father was the right one when the child’s best interests served as the baseline.

Bottom Line

The decision in Fairley v. Matelski highlights how North Carolina courts apply the child’s best interest standard even in complicated cases that involve an autism diagnosis. In this case, the trial court carefully evaluated the child’s stability and progress. The court also considered the parents’ ability to cooperate. Because of these detailed findings, the second instance court deferred to the trial court’s conclusions.

If you are involved in a custody dispute or seeking to modify an order in North Carolina, experienced legal counsel can help protect your parental rights and your child’s interests. Woodruff Family Law Group provides knowledgeable advice and strong representation. Contact us today to schedule your consultation.

The post Court of Appeals Upholds Sole Custody Under Child’s Best Interest Standard appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

To begin, we highlight the importance of the court making sufficient findings of fact regarding depreciation expenses when calculating income. Courts should follow and properly apply the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines, as well as the law itself, for their decisions to stand.

Background of the Child Support Dispute

In this case, the parties never married, but they had two minor children, both born in 2011. The defendant was the father, while the mother was the plaintiff. The father worked as a self-employed dump truck owner-operator.

In 2019, the trial court ordered the father to pay $50 per month in child support. But the mother filed a motion to modify in 2022, also requesting attorney fees. The modification request was based on the mother’s claim that the circumstances had changed since the court gave the initial child support order.

Then, in 2023, the trial court reviewed the father’s federal income tax returns for the previous two years. The returns showed that business income was reported on Schedule C and that significant depreciation deductions were also reflected for the father’s dump truck business.

Trial Court’s Child Support Modification

The court found the tax returns were valid evidence but rejected the father’s depreciation deductions. The opposite happened – the court added those depreciation amounts back into the business income, and calculated the father’s gross monthly income based on that amount.

The tax returns showed that the father had depreciation expenses that were around $40,000 per year. When they calculated the new gross income based on that, it showed that the father had more than $4,700 per month, far more than the amount determined in 2019 when the initial child support order was issued.

As a result, the trial court increased the father’s child support obligation to $905 per month.

The father appealed, claiming the court had, without justification, rejected the depreciation deductions and failed to make sufficient findings to explain the decision.

Court of Appeals Analysis of Depreciation Findings

The appellate court emphasized that the child support amount must be based on the parent’s actual gross income. In cases where an individual is self-employed, gross income is calculated by subtracting ordinary and necessary business expenses from gross receipts. But certain deductions are excluded, such as accelerated depreciation.

However, in the second instance, the court explained that while trial courts have the power to evaluate business expenses, the findings must be sufficiently detailed to allow meaningful appellate review.

The appellate court referenced prior cases to support their stance:

• Coble v. Coble: even though it dates back to 1980, this case is still cited when trial courts fail to make specific findings supporting their decisions.
• Lawrence v. Tise: this 1992 N.C. case addressed how depreciation should be considered in child support calculations.
• Head v. Mosier: this 2009 precedent explains that appellate courts give substantial deference to trial court decisions but may reverse them when they are abused.

In the o/b/o Herron v. Pressley case, the court did not explain why the father’s depreciation deductions were not taken into account or how they were treated under the child support guidelines. In the second instance, the court concluded that it could not properly review the first instance decision.

Furthermore, the appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding reparation. As a result, the modified child support order was reversed, and the case was remanded for additional findings.

Bottom line

The Mecklenburg County o/b/o Herron v. Pressley case shows why the courts must clearly justify any rejection or adjustment of business deductions when applying the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines. It also shows the importance of sufficient findings, as the lack of them will impede appellate review, leading to reversal and remand for further proceedings.

If you are facing a child support dispute or seeking a modification, experienced legal guidance will help you correctly evaluate the financial circumstances. Woodruff Family Law Group is an experienced team of North Carolina family law professionals that will offer practical advice and strong representation.

Contact us today to schedule your consultation.

The post North Carolina Court of Appeals Reverses Child Support Modification Over Depreciation Findings appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

Most divorce guides don’t talk about the unique and difficult legal and financial choices that small business owners in North Carolina have to make. Here is what you really need to know.

Is Your Business Marital Property?

North Carolina’s property division is governed by equitable distribution, a legal process in which courts divide marital assets in a way that is fair, not necessarily equal. Courts weigh a range of factors and can tip the scales unevenly depending on the circumstances of your specific case.

For business owners, this means that your business or company may be subject to division if it is considered marital property.

And don’t assume that a business you built before the wedding is automatically off-limits. Have you had any growth in value that occurred during the marriage? Well, courts can go after that too.

Before a single dollar gets divided, a judge must first sort every asset into one of three categories: marital, separate, or divisible property. Where your business lands will make all the difference.

Why Valuing a Small Business Can Be So Hard?

No one has ever said that valuing a small business is easy to do. That’s because, unlike a bank account or a vehicle, a business often includes intangible elements like goodwill, reputation, and future earning potential.

Did you know that goodwill itself can be considered part of a marital asset and must be included in the overall valuation?

Because of these complexities, courts frequently rely on expert appraisers to determine a business’s value.

Options for Dividing a Family-Owned Business in NC

While dividing a business can be complicated, courts generally try to avoid splitting ownership between divorcing spouses. So, who pays for the business valuation? In many cases, the cost is treated as a joint litigation expense, meaning both parties may share in the cost, especially if the valuation is necessary for equitable distribution.

That said, courts have some wiggle room. Depending on the circumstances (each spouse’s financial situation, who actually controls the business, who holds the keys to its records) a judge can shift that burden however they see fit.

From a practical point of view, this question is about more than just who pays. In a divorce involving a closely held company, a business valuation can be one of the most important pieces of evidence. The valuation expert’s conclusions can have an effect on more than just how property is divided. They can also affect negotiations for buyouts or distributive awards.

That’s why it’s normal for each spouse to hire their own expert. When there is a lot of money at stake and disagreements about income, goodwill, or the value of the business, neither side wants to let the other party’s hired person make the decision.

How You Can Protect Your Business During Divorce

Divorce doesn’t have to mean that a judge’s decision will split your life’s work in half. North Carolina business owners can get through this process with their futures intact if they have the right team behind them.

Many small business owners have gotten help from Woodruff Family Law with North Carolina’s fair distribution laws.

Are you ready to protect what you’ve made? Because the things you do now will have an effect for a long time. Don’t let them happen by chance. Contact us today to set up a meeting.

The post Divorce Challenges for Mom and Pop Business Owners in North Carolina appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

In the past, women were not allowed to practice law in courtrooms, attend law schools, or join bar associations. However, a committed group of trailblazers overcame these obstacles, paving the way for future generations of female lawyers and judges.

Their accomplishments increased access to justice and changed the American legal system. In the US today, 41% of attorneys are women. Even though it took over a century to make that progress, it started with a few revolutionary “firsts” that fundamentally altered the field.

The post Women Who Made Legal History in the United States appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

That is the case in Ludack v. Ludack, a 2024 decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. As you will see, the court addressed a vital question: can a temporary custody order become permanent over time?

We will discuss how Ludack v. Ludack clarified how courts evaluate temporary custody orders, how judicial delay affects them, and the importance of the requirement for detailed findings supporting custody decisions.

Background of Ludack v. Ludack

The Ludack couple married in 2012 and had one child during that marriage. They separated in 2017, and the father filed a complaint for child custody a year later.

What followed was a temporary custody consent order between the parties, which established a rotating custody schedule. A child would spend two days with one parent, two days with the other, and then three days with the first parent, and the cycle would repeat (2-2-3 custody schedule). This schedule is not uncommon, as it provides both parents with substantial parenting time and ensures the child has consistency.

In this case, the parties did not immediately resolve the issue of permanent custody, even after their divorce. In 2020, the mother requested that the court determine permanent custody. The court issued a written order in 2023, more than three years later, granting joint legal and physical custody, but structured it so that the child primarily lived with the mother during the school week.

Father appealed, and the case was sent to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Key Legal Issues in Ludack v. Ludack

The father had three main arguments, claiming:

• The trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its custody decision,
• The 38-month delay was prejudicial and should invalidate the decision.
• The court failed to address whether the temporary custody order had become permanent by operation of time.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court of Appeals carefully reviewed the trial court’s decision, starting from adequate findings of fact.

The North Carolina law requires courts to demonstrate that they have considered the child’s best interests when determining custody, and to support that with written findings. In this case, the trial court made nineteen findings regarding the parents’ relationship with the child, housing arrangements, employment, daily routines, education, and other matters. The second instance court concluded the written findings were sufficient.

As for the lengthy delay argument, the second instance court explained that the delay alone does not justify reversing a custody decision. If the parties want the courts to make a decision more quickly, they have other legal mechanisms, such as a writ of mandamus.

The last argument the father claimed stood: the court found the temporary custody order had indeed become permanent by operation of law, as neither party scheduled a permanent hearing within a reasonable period after the temporary custody order was entered. The trial court should have considered whether the delay effectively converted the temporary order into a permanent one.

As a result, the appellate court vacated the permanent custody order and remanded the case for further consideration.

Why Ludack v. Ludack Matters

The Ludack v. Ludack case highlights one key principle in family law: temporary custody orders can become permanent if parties delay requesting a final hearing.

The decision also shows the importance of detailed findings and the principle of serving the child’s best interest.

If you are dealing with a temporary custody order, modification, or delays in family court cases, consulting experienced family law attorneys can help you protect your rights.

Woodruff Family Law Group provides clear and practical legal advice to help you understand your position in custody disputes, allowing you to navigate the complex process with less tension.

Contact us today to schedule your consultation.

The post When Does a Temporary Custody Order Become Permanent? appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

Upwards of 95% of divorces in the US are settled outside of a courtroom, but for the cases that do reach a judge, a surprising number of respondents do not make appearances or participate whatsoever.

It can be tempting to think that silence ends the fight and guarantees the other spouse a win. But as Arrington v. Arrington shows, that is not how property division works in North Carolina. Even when one spouse defaults, the court still has to decide what is fair.

Background

Tammy and James Arrington married in 2013 and separated on their anniversary, seven years later in 2020.

The wife, Tammy Arrington, filed a claim for equitable distribution and specifically asked the court for an unequal division of the marital estate. James Arrington did not file a response on time, so a default was entered against him.

Even with James’s default, the case continued through the equitable distribution process, including hearings, affidavits, and evidence about the parties’ property and debts.

Then, at the final hearing, the trial court reviewed the marital estate and decided that a 50/50 split would not be equitable.

The court awarded James a larger share of the marital property, including the marital home, while also allocating various debts between the parties.

Tammy appealed, arguing that a defaulting spouse who never even asked for an unequal distribution couldn’t possibly be entitled to one. And yet, the North Carolina Court of Appeals disagreed.

What Happened During the Appeal?

The Court of Appeals explained that a default limits how a spouse can take part in the case, but it does not make the property division claim disappear. It’s still the trial court’s job to decide how to divide the marital property fairly.

Once the court determines that an equal division would be unfair, it has broad discretion to make an unequal distribution based on the statutory factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(c), even if that result benefits the spouse who did not request it.

Long story short: the Court of Appeals rejected her appeal.

What Does this Mean for Divorcing Spouses?

Do not assume procedural default guarantees a favorable property award! The whole point of North Carolina’s equitable distribution law is to divide marital property fairly. Just because James defaulted doesn’t mean he should be punished by receiving less property.

The only thing the default actually does in this situation is make it so that James no longer has the right to contest the case. It did not cost him his right to a just outcome.

A trial court may consider the parties’ income, debts, post-separation conduct relating to marital property, and other statutory factors when deciding whether an unequal division is appropriate. In Arrington, the appellate court emphasized that once the trial judge found a 50/50 split would be inequitable, the judge had the discretion to divide the estate accordingly.

Reach Out and We Can Help

If you are facing equitable distribution or a complex divorce in North Carolina, Woodruff Family Law Group can help you protect what matters most. Contact our Greensboro family law team to schedule a consultation and build a strategy for moving forward.

The post Can Property Division Happen When One Spouse Defaults? appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

As such, Face v. Face is practically a case study in its own right, serving as an important reminder not only for people going through a separation but also for legal professionals practicing family law, which is why we will dissect it in this article.

Background

The Face v. Face case emerged from a post-separation dispute, primarily over marital property, including business interests and trust assets. The trial court also decided on alimony, which was also called into question upon appeal.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded it in part. As such, this case illustrates the complexities of family disputes and the challenges courts face when evaluating property and equitable distribution in divorce cases.

Marital Property and Business Interests

The central issue in Face v. Face concerned the equitable distribution of marital property, including a minority ownership interest in an L.L.C.

Under North Carolina law, specifically N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(a) (2021), the court must classify property as either marital, separate, or divisible before determining any equitable division. In Face v. Face, the court saw that the business ownership was marital property. However, the defendant argued that the court erred in calculating and distributing the marital share of the business ownership.

In the second instance the court upheld the classification, viewing the business ownership as marital property, but it identified a clerical error in the mathematical calculations of the marital portion. The case was remanded in this part solely to recalculate the computational mistake, and is upheld in the substantive part.

This is an important legal concept as it shows that simple clerical errors may be corrected without overturning an otherwise proper equitable distribution analysis made by the trial court.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Rule 60(b) Motion in Trust Property Disputes

One of the main dispute points revolved around property placed in a revocable trust. The defendant claimed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to distribute trust assets, arguing that the trust itself had not been formally joined as a party to the proceedings.

The appellate court rejected this position, clarifying that when a spouse retains control over a revocable trust, those assets can still be considered as a part of the marital estate. As such, the trial court has correctly retained authority to classify and distribute the trust property, as it was revocable and controlled by one of the parties.

This opinion highlights the principle that marital assets cannot be shielded from equitable distribution by placing them in a revocable trust.

Alimony Determination and Appellate Review Standards in North Carolina

The last key point challenged by the defendant was the alimony amount.

In N.C., alimony determinations require findings on dependency, the supporting spouse’s status, income, expenses, and the marital standard of living. The trial court made its alimony decision primarily on the financial disparity between the parties.

The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the standards of review were well established. The second instance court upheld the decision, as the trial court made sufficient findings supported by appropriate evidence. There was no abuse of discretion, and the alimony duration was appropriate.

This part of the decision shows that the appellate court will stand by the trial court’s decisions when they are legally sound and supported by quality evidence and factual findings.

Bottom line

Overall, Face v. Face serves as a meaningful precedent in North Carolina family law. This decision alone highlights the nuances of precise asset valuation in equitable distribution, shows that parties cannot hide assets in revocable trusts, and underscores the importance of factual evidence in alimony decisions.

But the complexity of Face v. Face also demonstrates the importance of working with family law experts who understand the intricacies and delicate nature of family law and separation proceedings.

Woodruff Family Law Group’s clear, direct legal advice helps you understand your legal standing, enabling you to navigate the separation process without unnecessary headaches.

Contact us today to schedule your consultation.

The post Equitable Distribution and Alimony Ruling Explained appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

The North Carolina case of Efstathiadis v. Efstathiadis shows that parental behavior can be the deciding factor in whether or not a parent gets custody.

Background of the Efstathiadis v. Efstathiadis Case

After getting married in 2009, Efstathios Efstathiadis and Aphrodite Efstathiadis had two children together. They broke up in January 2021 and agreed on a temporary custody arrangement while they awaited a full court hearing.

Soon after the divorce, Aphrodite, the mother, was granted an ex parte Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO), which ended up playing a part in determining the father’s fitness to have custody of the children.

At the custody hearing on November 7, 2022, the court heard testimony and evidence about the father’s behavior during and after their marriage (the mother and children had experienced verbal and physical abuse).

Because the mother was thought to be in a better position to provide a stable and secure environment, the court determined that granting the mother primary custody was in the children’s best interests.

The father didn’t like the outcome, so he appealed the court’s ruling.

Efstathios Efstathiadis’ Arguments on Appeal

Efstathios challenged the foundation of the trial court’s ruling during the appeal, arguing that the findings regarding abuse and parental fitness were not supported by enough evidence and should not have justified awarding primary custody of his kids to their mother.

He also claimed the court applied the wrong legal standard. According to him, the custody order effectively modified the earlier custody terms in the Separation Agreement, which would require proof of a substantial change in circumstances under North Carolina law.

How the Court of Appeals Ruled

The trial court’s ruling was fully upheld by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

And despite contradicting testimony, the appellate court determined that the trial court’s conclusions were backed by reliable evidence. It underlined that appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence on review; rather, trial judges decide the credibility of witnesses and consider the evidence.

The claim that the order should have been regarded as a modification requiring evidence of a significant change in circumstances was also rejected. The appellate court couldn’t examine the claim since the divorce decree incorporating the previous custody agreement was not in the record.

The appellate panel also agreed with the trial court’s decisions about both the parents’ fitness and the children’s best interests.

In North Carolina, decisions about custody are looked at using the “abuse of discretion” standard. An appellate court will only change a decision if it is clear that it is not based on reason or evidence. This standard makes it so that in this case the Court of Appeals found that there was no abuse of discretion and let the custody order stand – meaning the mother should continue having full custody of the kids.

How We Can Help You

If you are facing a custody dispute or have concerns about parental fitness, the attorneys at Woodruff Family Law Group can help you understand your rights and build a strong case focused on your child’s well-being.

Contact Woodruff Family Law Group today to discuss your situation and protect what matters most.

The post How Parental Fitness Can Determine Custody appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

As you are about to see, the case had two significant points the court clarified for future cases: jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the clarification and application of the “best interests of the child” principle, particularly in cases when a non-parent seeks custody.

Harney v. Harney – Case Background and Summary

The appeal came from a Vance County trial court, which granted minor child custody to the maternal grandfather. The child’s mother challenged the decision, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction and also made an error by awarding custody to a non-parent.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, reinforcing the principles governing interstate custody and parental rights.

UCCJEA Jurisdiction in North Carolina Child Custody Cases

The first question in Harney v. Harney was whether North Carolina properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

The UCCJEA, among other things, governs interstate child custody disputes to ensure that only one state exercises jurisdiction in a given case. Doing so ensures legal certainty, which is especially important in disputes involving children, and is why the principle of the “child’s home state” is usually applied when establishing court jurisdiction.

Evidence showed that the child had resided in North Carolina since birth, so no other state was better positioned to qualify as the child’s home state. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that North Carolina had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

This shows the importance of the procedural part of each interstate case. The court must first confirm its subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a custody claim. In Harney v. Harney, the appellate court confirmed that the statutory requirements were satisfied, allowing the custody order to stand.

Trial Court Findings and the Best Interests of the Child Standard

The second issue, besides jurisdiction, concerned the custody itself and whether the child’s grandfather, as a non-parent, could have custody. The North Carolina law protects parents, giving them a priority right to custody of their children. However, that right may yield in particular cases, such as if a parent acts inconsistently with their protected status.

In Harney v. Harney, the trial court had enough evidence on the child’s care and living arrangements, showing that the grandfather was indeed the child’s primary caregiver. Furthermore, the grandfather provided daily stability and support, while the mother’s conduct showed limited engagement and weak decision-making responsibility.

Based on the findings, the trial court found that the mother acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected parental rights and applied the “best interests of the child” principle, awarding custody to the grandfather.

The Court of Appeals confirmed the trial court’s custody order. The appellate court reiterated that the custody decision was based on factual findings and supported by competent evidence showing that the grandfather was indeed the primary caregiver. It also showed that the mother’s (in)actions led her to lose her constitutionally protected parental rights, as they were against the child’s best interest.

Bottom line in Harney v. Harney

Harney v. Harney reinforces two important principles in North Carolina custody law. First, the importance of strict adherence to the UCCJEA jurisdictional requirements, as well as the importance of the “child’s best interests” standard.

This case shows that parents aren’t guaranteed to win custody disputes against non-parents, as the child’s best interests are determined in each case based on the parties’ prior history and relationship with the child, as well as the child’s living conditions.

Woodruff Family Law Group delivers clear, straightforward advice that helps you to understand your legal position and prepares you for what to expect in a child custody case or any family law matter you are dealing with.

Don’t navigate this alone. Contact us today to schedule your consultation.

The post North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Grandparent Custody appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.

A parent’s repeated disregard for court orders and intentional attempt to sabotage a child’s relationship with the other parent ultimately backfired in this North Carolina Court of Appeals case, leading to a significant custody modification that completely changed the arrangement.

Background of Hasz v. Brittain

In November 2019, the trial court gave the mother sole legal and physical custody and gave the father visitation.

The father used only a handful of visits at first, and then the mother blocked visitation for about a year during the COVID period. She also blocked his phone number, claimed she did not receive emails, and acted in hostile and degrading ways toward him.

Later, the mother reported the father to DSS for inappropriate touching of their daughter, but the report was closed as unsubstantiated. She also accused the father of abuse to the school and changed the children’s school without telling him.

Trial Court Proceedings that Lead to Custody Modification

Due to the mother’s violation of the 2019 Order, the father requested that the court hold her in contempt. In January 2022, she was found in civil contempt by the trial court.

The court ordered counseling, extended the father’s time, and temporarily altered the plan in March 2022. The court said this was one of the worst cases of parental alienation it had ever seen.

In July 2022, the judge appointed a new therapist after scheduling issues with the initial one. The record also detailed growing conflict, including the mother calling in several welfare checks, calling the father a “molester” and “pedophile” in public, and the father obtaining a DV protective order in a different case following one incident.

In October 2022, the trial court entered a new order giving the father primary custody, allowing the children to relocate with him to Virginia, and limiting the mother to every-other-weekend visitation. The trial court also held the mother in criminal contempt.

Appellate Issues and Court of Appeals Analysis

A custody order can only be modified in North Carolina if 1) there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare and 2) the change is in the child’s best interest.

The Court of Appeals mainly relied on evidence in this case that the children’s relationship with their father was negatively impacted by the mother’s animosity. Testimony from the therapist and DSS supported examples of this, like the kids’ refusal to call him “Dad” and their need for counseling.

The court also referenced a ruling from North Carolina that acknowledged that attempts to sabotage the other parent’s relationship and ongoing hostility in front of the kids can be considered significant changes, particularly when the interference becomes so widespread that it negatively impacts the parent-child relationship.

What Ultimately Happened

Given the detrimental parental dynamics, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father primary custody because it was in the best interests of the children.

This meant that the mother’s visitation was restricted to every other weekend, the children were placed mainly with their father, and they were permitted to move to Virginia with him.

The mother was also still found in contempt by the trial court.

Why This Case Matters for Parents

A judge may consider a significant change impacting the child’s welfare and alter custody decisions if one parent consistently prevents contact, makes baseless accusations, or ruins the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Does this sound familiar to you?

If you are dealing with a custody dispute or concerned about how your co-parent’s actions may affect your child, now is the time to get help. Get in touch with Woodruff Family Law Group to discuss your custody situation and options.

The post How Courts React to Parental Alienation in North Carolina appeared first on North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog.