Domestic Relations – Intervenor’s Standing – Significant Change in Circumstances

Intervenor has standing to seek custody of K.B. under N.C.G.S. § 50-13.5(j).

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

Mother appealed from multiple orders permitting intervention by an 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.

Mother’s challenge to intervenor’s standing was limited solely to the trial court’s invocation of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.5(j). This statute entitles grandparents to custody or visitation rights, and has no applicability to intervenor, who is not related by blood to K.B. Mother is correct that this cannot form the basis for intervenor’s standing, and this portion of Finding of Fact 9 is erroneous. However, a person unrelated to a child in a custody matter may still have standing under certain circumstances. Findings of Fact 8 and 11 satisfy the requirements that there is a sufficient relationship between the party seeking intervention and the child, and that the parent has acted inconsistently with their status as parent. Mother challenged neither finding, and unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. The trial court concluded that “the Intervenor has standing to seek custody of the minor child,” a conclusion supported by the binding findings of fact. Therefore, intervenor had standing to bring this current action.

Next, 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. Because we vacated the custody order, we did not need to address mother’s third assignment of error concerning the elements of that order.

Lastly, mother contended remand is necessary to correct the trial court’s erroneous finding that held mother in criminal contempt. However, “appeal from a finding of contempt by a judicial official inferior to a superior court judge is by hearing de novo before a superior court judge.” N.C.G.S. § 5A-17 (2025). “This statute vests exclusive jurisdiction in the superior court to hear appeals from orders in the district court holding a person in criminal contempt.” Accordingly, the Randolph County Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt. As we lack jurisdiction to address the issue, mother’s appeal as to criminal contempt is dismissed.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded.

Bullins v. Riddle (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-282-25, 25 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