Domestic Relations – Parenting Coordinator – Custody Agreement

Based on the parenting coordinator’s report that highlighted plaintiff’s inability to seek input from defendant concerning the children, “there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings and conclusion that there had been a substantial change in circumstances and that these changes had affected the welfare of the children.”

We discerned no error and affirmed the trial court’s holding.

This appeal was one of three before this Court arising from the same underlying matter. In this case, plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s custody order. Plaintiff asserted the following for appellate review: the trial court erred in its findings of facts; the trial court erred in not admitting evidence produced by plaintiff; the trial court modified the custody order absent a change in circumstances; trial court erred in drafting the permanent custody order; the trial court abused discretion by modifying the permanent custody order by issuing a temporary custody order; and the parent coordinator did not act in the child’s best interest.

Plaintiff’s second of three appeals arose from the trial court appointment of a parenting coordinator to file a report with the court on in March 2021. Then, in June 2021, with the parenting coordinator’s report pending, the trial court entered a permanent custody order. Five days later, the parenting coordinator issued their report, requesting that the trial court address concerns about plaintiff’s unilateral decision-making for the child. The parenting coordinator listed various examples, including, plaintiff scheduling and taking the child to a vision appointment despite defendant already having one scheduled for the child; plaintiff enrolling the child in public school without defendant’s knowledge; plaintiff having the child academically tested without the defendant’s knowledge; enrolling a child in driver’s education without the defendant’s knowledge; and having a child tested for ADD/ADHD without the defendant’s knowledge. The parenting coordinator testified that plaintiff’s unilateral decision-making “was creating problems for the children. . . .” Based on the parenting coordinator’s report, the trial court modified the permanent custody order, granting sole legal custody of the children to defendant. Plaintiff then appealed, arguing that the trial court’s factual findings were unsupported by the evidence. Plaintiff also argued that the trial court erred in not admitting or considering the evidence he offered at trial. Further, it is argued that the trial court erred by modifying the custody order without finding a substantial change in circumstances and subsequently abused its discretion in issuing the modified permanent custody order. Lastly, plaintiff asserted that the parent coordinator was biased against him.

Plaintiff’s objections offered nothing for us to avoid deferring “to the trial court’s judgment and not disturb[ing] its decision to modify an existing custody agreement.” Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471, 475, 586 S.E.2d 250, 254 (2003).

Affirmed.

Webster v. Devane-Webster (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-132-24, 11 pp.) (Michael Stading, J.) Appealed from Wake County District Court (Judges David Baker, Julie Bell, and Damion McCullers) Stetson Mansfield Webster, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant; No brief filed for defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished