Hatcher v. MatthewsÂ
248 N.C. App. 491
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Hatcher and Matthews, married in 1998 and divorced in 2009; Virginia court issued a final custody order in 2010 giving Matthews sole legal custody and primary physical custody with Hatcher having visitation; Virginia order registered in North Carolina in 2011.
- Emergency ex parte custody order entered in Guilford County in 2011 followed by a temporary custody order in 2011–2012 adjusting visitation.
- Hatcher filed a motion to modify custody in 2012; hearing held in 2015 with custody evaluation admitted as evidence.
- Trial court issued a 27 April 2015 order granting joint legal custody but keeping Matthews as primary physical custodian and modifying visitation; order based on best interests without explicit substantial-change finding.
- Hatcher appeals alleging (a) lack of substantial-change finding prior to modification and (b) insufficient evidence supporting the findings.
- This Court vacated the 27 April 2015 order and remanded for express findings on substantial change in circumstances; if substantial change occurred, proceed with best-interests analysis; if not, modification is inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia order was final vs. temporary for modification standard | Hatcher argues substantial-change required before modification. | Matthews contends standard may vary with order type. | Final order required substantial-change finding before modification. |
| Whether the trial court applied correct legal standard in 27 April 2015 order | Court erred by skipping substantial-change step and conducting only best-interests. | Court could consider best interests after determining substantial-change. | Incorrect standard; remand to determine substantial-change first. |
| Whether findings support best-interests result or require change in custody | Findings do not support transferring primary custody away from Matthews. | Best interests favored Matthews’s primary custody. | Remand for express substantial-change findings; if none, modification inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471 (2003) (review of findings when modifying custody must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Peters v. Pennington, 210 N.C. App. 1 (2011) (de novo review of legal standards in modification cases)
- LaValley v. LaValley, 151 N.C. App. 290 (2002) (permanent vs temporary order for modification; substantial-change prerequisite)
- West v. Marko, 141 N.C. App. 688 (2001) (threshold substantial-change analysis for permanent custody orders)
- Hibshman v. Hibshman, 212 N.C. App. 113 (2011) (no exceptions to requirement of substantial change before modification)
- Decker v. Homes, Inc./Constr. Mgmt. & Fin. Grp., 187 N.C. App. 658 (2007) (remand when a trial court applies incorrect legal standard)
- Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C. App. 540 (1997) (remand for findings based on proper standard)