Domestic Relations – Best Interest Analysis – Violation of Custody Order

The trial court’s conclusion that there was a significant change in circumstances affecting the minor child that render it appropriate to modify the custody order is unsupported by the findings of fact.

We affirmed the order in part, vacated the order in part, and remanded to the trial court to make additional findings of fact.

Mother appealed from multiple orders, the final order dated in 2024, permitting intervention the intervenor in mother’s complaint for custody of juvenile K.B. against Father, awarding joint legal and physical custody to mother and intervenor, awarding primary legal and physical custody to intervenor, further modifying custody, and holding mother in criminal contempt for violating the custody order.

The dissent repeatedly suggests intervenor is “interfering” with mother’s right to the care and custody of her child, asserting intervenor failed to “overcome the presumption that [mother] has the superior right to the care” and custody, and that the trial court did not find that mother “engaged in conduct inconsistent with her right to custody[.]” However, the unchallenged Finding of Fact 11 reflects that mother “brought the Intervenor, a non-parent, into the family unit and voluntarily ceded paramount decision-making authority over the minor child . . . .” Similarly, the court later concluded plaintiff “intentionally took steps to identify Intervenor as a parent to the minor child[,]” and in the course of establishing a shared family unit, plaintiff “acted inconsistently with her paramount parental status.” The motion to intervene and the evidence presented throughout the proceedings were sufficient for the trial court to find and conclude, as it did, that intervenor overcame the presumption that mother had the superior right to care and custody.

Finding of Fact 25 provides a summary of the change in circumstances as determined by the trial court. In Finding 26, the trial court determined this breakdown in communication “has affected the minor child in that he has exhibited difficulty in transitioning between households, becoming emotional and clingy.” Even if we assume, without deciding, that the communication issues between mother and intervenor constitute a change in circumstances, the trial court has not articulated a sufficient nexus between these issues and K.B.’s difficulties with transitions between the homes. The parties’ disagreements are not a “self-evident” cause of K.B.’s emotional dysregulation. It was incumbent upon the trial court to make a finding explaining why this reason specifically had caused the dysregulation, which it failed to do. The trial court found in Conclusion of Law 4, “There has been a significant change in circumstances affecting the minor child that render it appropriate to modify the July 27, 2023 custody order.” Since we have determined that this conclusion is unsupported by the findings of fact, we vacated the modified custody order and directed the trial court to make additional findings of fact and conduct a new hearing if there is insufficient evidence in the record to allow the trial court to make the required additional findings of fact.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Bullins v. Riddle (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-253-25, 28 pp.) (John Arrowood, J.) Appealed from Randolph County District Court (Sarah N. Lanier, J.) Hayes Law Offices, PLLC, by Mark L. Hayes, for plaintiff-appellant. Megerian & Wells, by Margaret Jeanne Megerian, for intervenor-appellee. No brief filed for Justin A. Turner, pro se defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals