Crenshaw v. Williams
211 N.C. App. 136
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Michigan divorce judgment (Aug 15, 2002) granted joint legal and physical custody; primary custody to Williams first 3 years, then to Crenshaw for next 3 years; Crenshaw moved to Charlotte, NC; Williams resides in Georgia.
- 2005 Michigan custody order enforced; Crenshaw awarded primary custody and child-support payments from Williams; Crenshaw has maintained custody since 2005.
- Crenshaw remarried (Myra McCaskill); McCaskill actively participates in children’s schooling and activities; Williams has not volunteered at the boys’ schools since relocating.
- Since Aug 2005, Williams has sporadic employment and misses several visits; Crenshaw and McCaskill engage in school involvement, sports coaching, and caregiving for the children.
- Crenshaw registered the Michigan divorce judgment and 2005 custody order in Mecklenburg County, NC, and sought modification; NC district court granted modification to Crenshaw and ordered child support from Williams; Williams appealed.
- Court addressed UIFSA registration and interstate custody norms, and analyzed whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances warranting custody modification; court ultimately affirmed modification of custody but reversed portion relating to child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UIFSA registration authority for support modification | Williams contends NC lacked authority to modify Michigan support due to improper registration | Crenshaw argues proper registration in Georgia gave NC jurisdiction to modify | Reversed for support modification; NC lacked authority to modify Michigan support order via registration in NC where obligor resided in Georgia. |
| Modification of foreign custody order | Williams argues no substantial change in circumstances. No change since 2005 Michigan order | Crenshaw shows substantial changes in parenting involvement, finances, and stability | Modification affirmed; substantial change in circumstances shown and modification in best interests. |
| Relocation impact on welfare of the children | Relocation alone not substantial change warranting custody modification | Relocation coupled with improved stability and welfare supports change | Relocation considered among circumstances; court found welfare impact supported modification. |
| Evidentiary support for findings | Challenge to several findings’ evidentiary support | Findings supported by substantial evidence; unchallenged findings binding | Arguments over nuances rejected; findings upheld. |
| Best interests standard applicability | Best interests not shown to favor Crenshaw | Best interests supported by substantial changes in welfare and parental involvement | Best interests supported; custody modification affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471, 586 S.E.2d 250 (N.C. 2003) (two-step custody modification analysis; substantial change and best interests)
- Metz v. Metz, 138 N.C.App. 538, 530 S.E.2d 79 (N.C. App. 2000) (substantial change includes factors beyond income; child welfare focus)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 288 N.C. 81, 216 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1975) (no modification where conditions unchanged)
- Ford v. Wright, 170 N.C.App. 89, 611 S.E.2d 456 (N.C. App. 2005) (modification requires changed circumstances)
- Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 501 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1998) (lawful framework for modification standard)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 46 N.C.App. 495, 265 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. App. 1980) (relocation alone not sufficient without welfare showing)
- Evans v. Evans, 138 N.C.App. 135, 530 S.E.2d 576 (N.C. App. 2000) (interstate custody and modification considerations)
- In re T.J.D.W., 182 N.C.App. 394, 642 S.E.2d 471 (N.C. App. 2007) (home state and jurisdiction in modification)
- White v. White, 90 N.C.App. 553, 369 S.E.2d 92 (N.C. App. 1988) (considerations beyond income in custody decisions)
- Jolly v. Queen, 264 N.C. 711, 142 S.E.2d 592 (N.C. 1965) (distinction between custody and support discourse)