Domestic Relations – Child Custody – Parent Relocating to Foreign Jurisdiction

The permanent child custody order failed to resolve key disputed issues and did not contain sufficient findings to demonstrate that the decision served the child’s best interests.

We vacated and remanded a permanent child custody order that awarded Mother primary physical custody and permitted her to relocate with the parties’ minor child, “Sam,” to Israel.

Sam was born in April 2020 to unmarried parents who both reside in North Carolina but have strong family ties to Israel. Mother filed for custody shortly after the child’s birth. Over the next several years, Father’s involvement was intermittent, with limited visitation that gradually expanded under temporary agreements. Mother and Sam made multiple trips to Israel, during which Sam visited both maternal and paternal relatives. In December 2023, Mother moved to modify the temporary arrangement, expressing her desire to relocate permanently to Israel, citing her family support system, cultural and religious considerations, and personal circumstances.

After a hearing in April 2024, the trial court entered an order granting joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Mother, secondary custody to Father, and permission for Mother to relocate to Israel with Sam. The court made over 100 findings of fact but only two conclusions of law, including that both parents were fit and proper. It did not expressly conclude that the relocation and custody arrangement were in Sam’s best interests.

On appeal, we explained that while a trial court need not use “magic words,” its findings must resolve the primary disputes and show how the decision promotes the child’s welfare. Here, several central issues were left unresolved. First, the order recited testimony about the safety situation in Israel during the ongoing war but did not adjudicate whether relocating there posed a meaningful risk to Sam. Second, the trial court acknowledged conflicting testimony about the safety of the specific neighborhood where Mother planned to live but did not resolve that conflict. Third, while the trial court made more definite findings about Father’s ability to travel and Mother’s intent to facilitate contact, it did not meaningfully analyze how the unpredictability of travel and the parties’ strained communication might affect Sam’s relationship with Father.

We also addressed the relocation factors identified in Ramirez-Barker v. Barker, which, while not mandatory checklists, are highly relevant to determining a child’s best interests in relocation cases. The trial court made some findings touching on these factors, such as Mother’s good faith motives and the presence of extended family in Israel, but largely failed to weigh advantages and disadvantages, compare the proposed environments, or analyze whether a realistic visitation schedule would preserve the parental relationship. As in prior cases, we emphasized that the quality, not the quantity, of findings controls.

Vacated and remanded.

Cohen v. Hefetz (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-029-26, 21 pp.) (John Tyson, J.) Appealed from Alamance County Superior Court (Kathryn Whitaker Overby, J.) Steven C. McRae, P.A., by Steven C. McRae, for the plaintiff-appellee. Sandlin Family Law Group, by Deborah Sandlin, for the defendant-appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals