Carpenter v. Carpenter
225 N.C. App. 269
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff appeals a 6 January 2012 custody order awarding Defendant primary custody of George with secondary custody to Plaintiff.
- Amended custody order issued 23 January 2012 made minor, non-substantive changes; Plaintiff timely noted appeal on both orders.
- Trial court conducted a custody hearing in Oct–Nov 2011 and issued findings of fact and conclusions in the 6 January 2012 order.
- Plaintiff argues the findings are insufficient to support the best-interests determination and that disputed issues (notably alcohol use and parenting styles) were not resolved.
- Court reverses the order for lack of adequate findings, remanding for additional findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decretal provisions, and clarifies custody terminology.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the trial court's findings support the best interests ruling? | Carpenter: findings insufficient to support the best-interest conclusion. | Carpenter's challenges lack merit; findings adequate to support best interest under Hall. | Insufficient findings; remand for more detailed findings. |
| Are the findings adequate to resolve the material disputed issues (alcohol use and parenting styles) affecting George's welfare? | Findings fail to resolve substantial issues about alcohol and parental cooperation. | Findings sufficiently indicate fitness and best interest decisions; no error in resolution. | Findings do not resolve key issues; remand instructed. |
| Should the order define and implement joint custody with clear legal/physical custody terms on remand? | Order implies joint custody but lacks clear delineation of legal/physical custody. | Order treated as joint custody; no error in concept, but clarity is needed. | Remand to define custody framework more clearly; treat as joint custody for purposes of remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Dixon, 67 N.C. App. 73 (1984) (finding of fact must resolve issues bearing on the child's welfare)
- Kowalzek v. Kowalzek, 37 N.C. App. 364 (1978) (findings must resolve disputed issues pertaining to the child's welfare)
- Witherow v. Witherow, 99 N.C. App. 61 (1990) (credibility of witnesses is for trial judge; findings conclusive on appeal)
- Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708 (1980) (quality of findings, not quantity, determines trial court’s adequacy)
- Peters v. Pennington, N.C. App. (2011) (review of findings and conclusions; not every fact must be stated)
- Hall v. Hall, 188 N.C. App. 527 (2008) (best-interest determination upheld if supported by competent evidence)
- Woncik v. Woncik, 82 N.C. App. 244 (1986) (unsubstantiated gaps in the evidentiary chain; remand to resolve disputes)
- Patterson v. Taylor, 140 N.C. App. 91 (2000) (joint custody concepts; need for clear articulation of custody terms)