burrislawpllc

Relocation in Child Custody Modification

Sat, 21 Feb 2026 13:55:27 GMT

Cohen v. Hefetz and Revisiting the Ramirez-Barker Factors

Relocation in Child Custody Modifications:

If a planned move necessitates a change in the custody schedule, that can be a substantial change in circumstances warranting a court to modify a previous custody order. As one can imagine, moves are carefully scrutinized by a trial judge to determine if the move is in the best interest of the children or would rather be a negative impact on the children. On February 4, 2026, the N.C. Court of Appeals overruled a trial court’s modification of custody allowing Mother to relocate to Israel with the minor child and remanded the case to the trial court for further findings and conclusions of law. Cohen v. Hefetz, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 89 (this decision is not final until expiration of the twenty-one-day rehearing period.)

In this case, the parents were never married, and Mother had always had primary custody with Father having visitation. In the beginning of “Sam’s” (a pseudonym) life, Father’s contact was minimal. Father considered relinquishing his parental rights, but ultimately, he began to spend more time with Sam, though he agreed Mother could visit her family in Israel for weeks at a time. Father’s extended family also lived in Israel. The custody order being modified gave Father every other weekend visitation until Monday mornings and extra time in the summer. When Mother filed a motion to modify child custody and take the child to Israel to live, Father opposed her motion. Ultimately, the trial court agreed with Mother, modified custody, and permitted relocation.

Father appealed the order arguing the court’s findings of fact did not support its conclusion that primary custody should be granted to Mother and that Mother should be allowed to relocate to Israel with the child. The Court of Appeals agreed, noting that many of the trial court’s findings were “mere recitations” of testimony and did not resolve the disputed issues and that the trial court had not explained why awarding primary custody to Mother was in the child’s best interest. In this case, the Court of Appeals noted, the primary disputes between the parties were the safety of the child, relocation to Israel rather than the U.S., the safety of the neighborhood Mother would live in, and whether Sam’s relationship with Father and his family would suffer. Though the Court listed 101 findings of fact, many of those “findings” were simply things like, “[Mother’s brother] indicated that he has no concerns about his or his family’s safety in Israel,” while “[Father’s brother] indicated that i[t] i[s] not safe to raise children in Israel right now, but his own children are in Israel. . . .” Id. at *12-13. Rather than the trial court stating it found one witness more credible or finding that it was currently safe enough to raise children in Israel, the trial court simply recited testimony and did not resolve the issue of the child’s safety in Israel. However, the Court of Appeals also concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to resolve the dispute and make the appropriate Findings of Fact, so the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court to make the appropriate findings and conclusions of law to support its order.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court’s conclusions of law were also deficient.

Before awarding custody of a child to a particular party, the trial court must conclude as a matter of law that the award of custody to that particular party 'will best promote the interest and welfare of the child.'" Steele v. Steele, 36 N.C. App. 601, 604, 244 S.E.2d 466, 468 (1978) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2(a)). Here, the trial court failed to conclude a grant of primary physical custody to Mother with her relocation to Israel was in the "best interest" of the minor child.

Id. at *9-10. While the Court of Appeals concluded no magic words are necessary, this order did not explain why awarding primary custody to Mother to move to Israel were in the best interests of the child. Id.

Father also argued that the trial court’s order should be set aside because it did not include a recitation of every Ramirez-Barker factor. The Court of Appeals declined to go that far, but did note, those factors will be appropriate to consider in almost all relocation cases. Those factors

include but are not limited to: the advantages of the relocation in terms of its capacity to improve the life of the child; the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move; the likelihood that the custodial parent will comply with visitation orders when he or she is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of North Carolina; the integrity of the noncustodial parent in resisting the relocation; and the likelihood that a realistic visitation schedule can be arranged which will preserve and foster the parental relationship with the noncustodial parent.

Ramirez-Barker v. Barker, 107 N.C. App. 71, 80, 418 S.E.2d 675, 680 (1992). (overruled on other grounds).

So, what does this mean for parents wanting to relocate or parents opposing relocation? For one thing, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. That does not necessarily mean Father wins and Mother can’t move with the child. It means the trial court has to add enough findings of fact and conclusions of law to support whatever order it makes. The trial court may simply resolve disputes, make more findings of fact, and conclude that it is in the best interests of the child to live with Mother in Israel. Sometimes a win at the Court of Appeals just results in a corrected order with the same outcome. That means legal fees and costs for the trial and more for the appeal, and even if you technically win, it may not be the outcome you hoped for.

For parents who litigate relocation cases, future relational costs can be high. Under the Ramirez-Barker factors, what trial courts are tasked with doing in any relocation case is determining the motives of the parents supporting and opposing relocation, determining whether the custodial parent will obey North Carolina custody orders when they live beyond the jurisdiction of North Carolina, determining whether it is in the best interests of the child to grant primary custody to one parent, and determining whether visitation can preserve the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. A parent who wants to relocate will want to demonstrate that the purpose of relocation is not to reduce the child’s time with the other parent, the purpose of the move is to benefit the child in some way such as more access to extended family, more support for that parent, or a higher income which will give the child greater benefits. A parent who opposes relocation will want to show to the court the other parent has bad motives in deciding to move such as a desire to reduce that parent’s time with the child and interfere with the parent-child relationship. The parent who opposes relocation will also want to demonstrate the move would not be beneficial to the child and demonstrate the difficulty of arranging a realistic visitation schedule to keep the relationship with non-custodial parent strong. For the parent who opposes relocation, any evidence of the custodial parent’s violations of the present child custody order or interference with visitation will be highlighted during the trial.

One can understand, then, that a court hearing on relocation can be highly contentious, and further damage a co-parenting relationship, but it may be necessary. Parents who don’t live together usually do so for good reasons. If they could discuss things calmly and hear, understand, and validate the other’s point of view, they might still be together. The parents talking face to face about an issue where one parent is sure to “lose” is a recipe for disaster . . . unless there could be another way.

There are other options to consider when one parent is considering relocation: mediation and the collaborative process. In each of these processes, it’s not just the parents talking which can devolve into nothing more than a heated argument. Others are involved, which can hopefully bring more light than heat. If these options fail, a trial on relocation is still a possibility.

In mediation, the parents can appear with or without attorneys, and have a mediator assist in exploring options and the real issues behind the move. Parties can take breaks. The mediator can go back and forth between the parties, giving each party the chance to fully express their emotions and wishes and giving them a full opportunity to be heard by someone, the mediator. In court hearings, parties are questioned. Their answers should conform to the question. Parties aren’t given the opportunity to ramble about things that may be important to them, but not directly relevant to the case. A party can go through an entire court hearing, and still come out on the other side, feeling they weren’t really heard and understood. Evidence they thought was important may have been excluded. In mediation, if both parties are committed to the process, they can both be heard and validated, and then have their concerns raised by a trained mediator with the other party. A skilled mediator can move the parties past black and white thinking to solution seeking and meeting at least some of each parent’s needs.

In the collaborative process, both parties must have collaboratively trained attorneys, and they sign a participation agreement, agreeing not to go to court during the collaborative process. They agree that they will voluntarily reveal all material and relevant information and any experts they hire will be neutral. So, for example, they may hire a collaboratively trained child specialist (therapist or psychologist) to interview the parties and the child and make recommendations as to what solutions would benefit the child. And both parents reveal all the information about possible schools the child would attend, activities available, parents’ work schedules, etc. Then, in one or more meetings with both attorneys, the parties, and possibly that child specialist, the parties meet to try to resolve their issues. Each party will have legal advice on what a judge might do in their situation, but the focus is on finding a mutually acceptable lasting solution, not impugning the motives of the other parent. If the parties can work collaboratively with the assistance of attorneys, that may lead to a more harmonious relationship going forward. If the parties cannot agree, they can end the process and go to court, but any experts they hired and their attorneys will be disqualified from appearing because everything they were doing was for settlement purposes, not litigation. And, of course, that’s expensive, so both parties have real motivation to reach a solution they can both live with if possible.

In both mediation and the collaborative process, the issues behind a potential move are explored, but not with a focus on blame. Is the real reason for the move, that one parent needs more extended family support to assist with childcare and home upkeep? If that’s the real motivation, could the other parent offer more support in childcare or transportation to activities? If the move does happen, could the moving parent increase the other parent’s visitation in the new location? For example, could the moving parent use their airline points to allow the other parent to visit for extended weekend visits and Spring Breaks, in addition to sending the child for summer visitation? In mediation and the collaborative law process, the emphasis is usually on problem-solving, not highlighting the problems for the purpose of winning. Not every case is right for the collaborative process and sometimes a trial is the best option, but the collaborative process is an underused method of resolving disputes.

This is obviously not legal advice in your case as every relocation case is different. For legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Equitable Distribution: Valuation of Businesses and Credibility of Experts

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 18:47:50 GMT

Problems When Experts Value Things Very Differently

Key Takeaways : When a court distributes a marital business, the court either has to consider the value of marital funds in business accounts as part of the value of the business or value and distribute the marital funds in business accounts apart from the business. As to real property, when an appraiser considered the value of the property after a hurricane damaged the property, but did not conduct a whole new appraisal, that only went to the weight, but not the competency of the evidence, and the court was free to adopt that appraisal as the value, even though another appraiser had conducted a new appraisal after the hurricane and arrived at a lower value. The trial court found that expert lacked credibility. Questions of credibility are “’exclusively within the province of the trial court’ and are binding on appeal when supported by competent evidence.” Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 54, *5.

A North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion issued January 21, 2026, Lawrence v. Lawrence, No. COA25-304, found that a trial court erred when it adopted a value for the marital business that explicitly did not include the value of the marital funds held in company bank accounts, and then failed to separately distribute the marital funds in the company bank accounts.

In this case, the parties stipulated that the value of the company accounts included $98,843.09 in marital funds that had already been earned and that the remaining funds in company accounts were client trust funds held for material costs and overhead. The trial court adopted husband’s expert’s valuation of the business of $62,591.57 rather than wife’s expert’s value of $323,000. When husband’s expert was questioned as to whether he considered the marital funds in his valuation of the business, he responded that he did not.

In a North Carolina equitable distribution case, “the trial court must conduct a three-step analysis: (1) determin[e] which property is marital property; (2) calculat[e] the net value of the marital property . . . and, (3) distribut[e] the property in an equitable manner." Hamby v. Hamby, 143 N.C. App. 635, 638 (2001). Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 54, *5. When a trial court fails to distribute marital property, that is reversible error. Id.

Here, because the trial court adopted a valuation of the business that explicitly excluded the marital portion of the accounts and did not distribute the marital portion of the accounts, the court erred. “If the trial court accepted a valuation that excluded the accounts, it could not simultaneously treat the accounts as included.” Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 54, *7.

The other main asset of the marriage was a Florida home that had been damaged by a hurricane. Husband’s expert valued the home at $900,000, but he did not conduct a new appraisal after the hurricane, while wife’s expert valued the home at $485,000 after the hurricane. The trial court’s order distributed the property to the Wife at Husband’s expert’s value. Wife appealed on the basis that the court valued the property on incompetent evidence because Husband’s expert did not reappraise the home after the hurricane, instead opining that while the hurricane caused some slow down, the value remained the same because of more people moving into the area and less available inventory. The trial court also found Wife’s expert was not a credible witness because he had been found not to have exercised due diligence in a appraisal by an appraisal governing body and had judgments against him that he blamed on his wife. Here, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s valuation and distribution of the Florida property because questions of credibility are left to the discretion of the trial court and binding on appeal and the fact that Husband’s expert did not reappraise the property went to the weight, but not the sufficiency of the evidence.; Husband’s evidence was still competent evidence and “[a] trial court's findings of fact in an equitable distribution case are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence.” Lawrence 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 54, *4 (quoting Edwards v. Edwards, 215 N.C. App. 549, 550(2017). Husband’s expert had considered the effect of the hurricane without reappraising the property.

So, in this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Wife’s Motion to Amend the ED Order, ordered the trial court to distribute the marital funds in the company bank account and if necessary to adjust the distributive award. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of Wife’s Motion to Amend the ED Order as to the value of the residence in Florida.

Allport v. Allport and Applications for Negotiated Agreements

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:06:20 GMT

Unlike some other states, and unlike child support, in North Carolina there is no formula to determine the amount and duration of alimony. And where there is uncertainty, there is hotly contested litigation, but there is also room to negotiate.

In a recent case, Allport v. Allport, No. COA24-369, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld an alimony award of $14,767.52 monthly permanent alimony to the dependent spouse who was aged 63 at the time of trial, despite her multiple degrees and former employment as an attorney. This case involved a couple, who each had an individual estate valued at between two and three million dollars after the consent equitable distribution order and it has essential guidance on high income marital cases, cases involving parties nearing retirement, and cases involving illicit sexual behavior. Here the trial court found no bad faith when the dependent spouse, aged 63 at the time of trial, did not seek employment after she had been out of the workforce for many years despite her previous employment as an attorney and the Court of Appeals, therefore, upheld the trial court’s decision not to impute income to her. One of the key lessons from this case is that the trial court is required to treat retirement contributions and assets the same for both parties. So, for instance, if the trial court allows a supporting spouse to reduce his net monthly income by his retirement contributions, the same treatment should be afforded the dependent spouse, or at least she should not be required to take early distributions from her retirement to supplement her income. Also, since the trial court determined the dependent spouse was not acting in bad faith, the trial court was not required to impute social security income she could receive if she elected for early retirement. As to the illicit sexual behavior, the trial court was not improperly punishing the supporting spouse but instead made an appropriate finding of fact as to the “especially egregious illicit sexual affair,” along with many other findings supporting the amount and duration of alimony.

In this case as in other cases before, the Court emphasized that alimony is determined on many factors listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. §50-16.3A, including the standard of living established during the marriage and that the accustomed standard of living means “more than mere economic survival” and that indeed, the purpose of alimony is to allow the dependent spouse to “enjoy the accustomed standard of living the parties enjoyed during their marriage.” Allport v. Allport No. COA24-369 citing Williams v. Williams, 299 N.C. 174, 181, 261 S.E 2d 849, 855 (1980). Husband’s argument that the trial court failed to consider how the parties’ needs and incomes would change over time (Husband was 62 and expected his income would be drastically reduced within 5 years) was rejected because it was speculative. No one can predict the future and the ability to modify alimony based on a change in circumstances means that both spouses have a remedy if circumstances change. They can file a motion to modify alimony.

This case involved a 4-day alimony trial with testifying financial experts on each side, the cost of an appeal, and the right to go back to court and do it all over again if circumstances change. The Court of Appeals is correct; orders must be based on actual evidence not speculation and so the fully litigated alimony case may yield a result that virtually guarantees future litigation and more attorney’s fees. Negotiated agreements, through the collaborative law process or otherwise, may yield a more durable agreement where the parties can plan ahead for contingencies such as retirement. Advice from a neutral financial expert, often used in the collaborative law process, may be accepted by a party as more reliable and accurate than the opposing party’s expert. Attorneys involved in negotiating alimony agreements can prepare their clients by informing them ahead of a mediation/negotiation about the uncertainty of the trial process, that accustomed standard of living means more than mere subsistence if you lived a luxurious lifestyle during the marriage, that the court decides what your reasonable expenses really are (in this case, the trial court reduced the dependent spouse’s reasonable needs and expenses by about 30%), and that a four-day trial with competing experts and an appeal costs more than mere money. It may seriously impair a co-parenting relationship going forward and keep the parties involved in litigation for years. And litigation creates real emotional suffering. When parties are properly informed as to the uncertainty of the amount and duration of alimony in North Carolina, and given a realistic idea of what amount of alimony they can expect to pay or receive, they can be prepared to engage in creative problem-solving to reach a lasting agreement. [i]

[i] See also Yeun-Hee Juhnn v. Do-Bum Juhnn, 242 N.C. App. 58, 775 S.E. 2d 310 (2015) where the Court of Appeals upheld an award of 18 years of alimony after a 16-year marriage and Ellis v. Ellis, 767 S.E.2d 413, 238 N.C. App. 239 (2014) where the Court of Appeals upheld an alimony award of 2 years after an approximately 14-year marriage following a condoned affair early in the marriage). The duration of alimony varies widely in North Carolina.

The Collaborative Law Process

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:00:51 GMT

In North Carolina, collaborative law procedures in the family law area have been used since 2003. You can find the act here: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_50/Article_4.pdf.

For other civil matters, North Carolina adopted the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in 2020, in N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-641 et seq. You can find that act here: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_1/Article_53.pdf

So, what is collaborative law? Collaborative law is an entirely voluntary process where parties agree to attempt to resolve their disputes in a negotiated agreement rather than litigation. The parties and their collaboratively trained attorneys all sign a collaborative law participation agreement where they agree, among other things, to make full disclosure of all relevant information to the process. This avoids long and costly discovery battles that may occur in traditional litigation. If experts are needed, the parties jointly hire the experts to give neutral advisory opinions and evaluations. Each party has the benefit of his or her own attorney providing advice at all stages of the process. With the assistance of attorneys and neutral experts, if any, the parties jointly have one or more meetings and identify the issues, attempting to resolve their dispute. If the parties reach agreement, the attorneys draft the agreement, and the parties sign the agreement. If agreement is not reached, or one or both parties withdraw from the process, the collaborative attorneys and neutral experts must withdraw from the process as well.

The emphasis in collaborative law is on problem-solving and is especially useful in situations where the parties want privacy or confidentiality or situations where the parties may continue to have a relationship in the future such as divorcing spouses, business dissolutions, business disputes, employment conflicts, construction disputes, and neighbors. The collaborative law process may be, but is not always, less expensive than traditional litigation.

This is not legal advice in your situation, but a general overview of the collaborative law process. For more information, consult your own attorney.