Tankala v. PithavadianÂ
248 N.C. App. 429
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in New York (2003); New York court modified custody (2004) to allow mother to move to NC and awarded father alternate-weekend visitation; mother later lived in NC and child became NC resident.
- Father registered the New York custody order in Wake County (2010), then moved to modify custody in NC; after evaluation and hearings the NC trial court (2011) found a substantial change of circumstances and entered a comprehensive custody order giving mother primary physical custody, joint legal custody, and ordering reunification therapy with a designated therapist and parenting coordinator.
- The 2011 order expressly delegated timing/methods of reunification therapy to the reunification therapist and required the parties to follow therapist recommendations; therapists later recommended an intensive out-of-state “Overcoming Barriers” family camp when reunification progress stalled.
- A parenting coordinator later endorsed the camp and sought court review; at a 13 Feb 2015 hearing the trial court approved a plan for weekend visits with paternal family and ordered that, if visits did not progress, the parties and child must attend the recommended camp; attendance and the visits were made priority over other activities.
- Mother appealed, arguing the March 2015 Order modified custody without a motion and requisite changed-circumstances findings, lacked required notice, exceeded parenting-coordinator authority, and impermissibly imposed financially burdensome obligations akin to child-support modification.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 Order constituted a modification of the 2011 custody order requiring a motion and findings of changed circumstances | Order enforced therapy/visitation methods within scope of 2011 order (therapist/PC control); not a custody modification | Order changed visitation/treatment regimen and thus modified custody; a motion to modify and changed-circumstances findings were required | Court: Not a modification of custody; requirement fell within scope of the prior comprehensive custody order and delegated therapeutic authority, so no motion/finding required |
| Whether the trial court’s order adding specific weekend visitation dates/locations was a custody modification | Specific dates/locations implement, not alter, custody rights granted in 2011 | Specific new locations/dates alter terms of custody and require modification procedures | Court: Additional dates/locations consistent with the 2011 order and not a modification |
| Whether the parenting coordinator/therapists had authority to require camp attendance | 2011 order delegated therapeutic timing/methods to therapist and authorized PC to resolve implementation issues; courts may authorize PC decisions until reviewed | PC/therapist recommendation plus court approval amounts to overreach absent explicit prior authorization | Court: Parenting coordinator and therapist recommendations, when adopted by the court, were within the implementation authority granted by the 2011 order and statutes; court retained final authority and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the Order improperly imposed financial obligations (like child support) by prioritizing camp/transport and allocating costs | Costs/travel/therapy were already addressed in the 2011 order; requiring attendance or travel does not itself rewrite child-support obligations | Compelling payment/priority of camp/transport effectively modifies support obligations beyond court’s jurisdiction | Court: Not a child-support modification; earlier NC custody order already addressed travel and therapy cost allocation and the March 2015 Order did not alter support terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Washington, 148 N.C. App. 206 (discusses final v. interlocutory judgments)
- Senner v. Senner, 161 N.C. App. 78 (temporary custody order criteria)
- Peters v. Pennington, 210 N.C. App. 1 (upholding delegation of therapeutic visitation control to neutral third party)
- Regan v. Smith, 131 N.C. App. 851 (distinguishing temporary and permanent custody orders)
- Brewer v. Brewer, 139 N.C. App. 222 (temporary custody orders are generally interlocutory)
- Cox v. Cox, 133 N.C. App. 221 (upholding court orders granting treatment providers authority to suspend/terminate therapeutic visitation)
- Hennis, State v., 323 N.C. 279 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Everette v. Collins, 176 N.C. App. 168 (custody decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)