Laprade v. BarryÂ, 253 N.C. App. 296

Background

Parents Trista LaPrade (mother) and Christopher Barry (father) share one child, Reagan; custody history includes a 2011 permanent order splitting physical custody and a 2012 modification giving primary custody to father.
Mother filed a 2014 motion to modify custody alleging (inter alia) that father’s girlfriend was effectively the child’s primary caregiver and that father limited mother’s contact with the child; mother also alleged she had ceased previously problematic behaviors (e.g., repeated doctor visits and law-enforcement complaints alleging abuse).
The district court held a multi-day hearing (Jan–Mar 2015) and entered a May 2015 order granting primary physical custody to mother.
The court’s findings emphasized (1) poor parental communication (texts, one-word replies), (2) father and his girlfriend controlling/limiting mother’s access and listening in on calls (with whispered coaching), (3) child anxiety tied to father’s household practices, and (4) mother’s cessation of prior conduct that had prompted concern.
Father appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding a substantial change of circumstances, in denying his motions to dismiss, and in excluding certain questioning; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (LaPrade)	Defendant's Argument (Barry)	Held
Whether a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child’s welfare justified custody modification	LaPrade: Mother argued father’s conduct (limited communication, girlfriend controlling access, child anxiety) and mother’s positive behavioral changes constitute a substantial change warranting transfer of primary custody to mother	Barry: Argued there was insufficient/new evidence; the parties have long had poor communication and the same caregiving arrangement (girlfriend) existed previously, so no substantial change occurred	Held: Affirmed — trial court findings (supported by substantial evidence) show a substantial change affecting the child’s welfare and justify modification
Whether the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss at close of plaintiff’s case/all evidence	LaPrade: Presented testimony and evidence supporting findings; court could deny dismissal	Barry: Contended plaintiff failed to produce substantial competent evidence, so dismissal was warranted	Held: Not reached independently — appellate court accepted that binding findings supported change-of-circumstances conclusion and thus denied error in refusing dismissal
Whether the trial court improperly limited defendant’s cross-examination about pre‑existing conduct	LaPrade: Trial court considered past conduct and specifically found mother’s prior conduct had ceased	Barry: Contended he was unfairly prevented from questioning mother about circumstances existing at time of the prior order	Held: No reversible error — trial court had already found and accounted for prior conduct; defendant made no adequate offer of proof, so appellate review failed
Whether appellate court should reweigh evidence in favor of defendant	LaPrade: Relied on trial court’s credibility assessments and factual findings	Barry: Submitted competing transcript excerpts to show findings unsupported and asked court to reweigh evidence	Held: Court declined to reweigh; unchallenged findings supported by substantial evidence are binding on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471 (2003) (establishes two-step modification test: substantial change of circumstances affecting child and best interests inquiry; appellate deference to trial court findings)
In re J.K.C., 218 N.C. App. 22 (2012) (unchallenged trial-court findings are presumed supported by competent evidence and binding on appeal)
State v. Dew, 225 N.C. App. 750 (2013) (explains requirement for an offer of proof to preserve exclusion of testimony for appeal)