The “General Assembly\u2019s choice to leave \u2018joint legal custody\u2019 undefined implies a legislative intent to allow a trial court \u2018substantial latitude in fashioning a \u2018joint legal custody arrangement.\u2019\u201d Diehl v. Diehl, 177 N.C. App. 642, 647, 630 S.E.2d 25, 28 (2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
G.S. 50-13.2(a) requires that \u201c[a]n order for custody of a minor child entered pursuant to this section shall award the custody of such child to such person, agency, organization or institution as will best promote the interest and welfare of the child.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.2(a) (2019). \u201cThis provision codified the rule declared many times by the North Carolina Supreme Court that in custody cases the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the court\u2019s decision must be governed.\u201d Green v. Green, 54 N.C. App. 571, 572, 284 S.E.2d 171, 173 (1981). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEvidence of a parent\u2019s ability or inability to cooperate with the other parent to promote their child\u2019s welfare is relevant in a custody determination and material to determining the best interests of the child.\u201d Cunningham v. Cunningham, 171 N.C. App. 550, 559, 615 S.E.2d 675, 682 (2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7(a), \u201can order of a court of this State for custody of a minor child may be modified or vacated at any time, upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances by either party or anyone interested.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7(a) (2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The party moving for modification of a custody decree bears the burden of showing that there has been a substantial change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 619, 501 S.E.2d 898, 899 (1998) (citing Blackley v. Blackley, 285 N.C. 358, 362, 204 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1974)). \u201cThe party seeking to have the custody order vacated has the burden of showing that circumstances have changed between the time of the order and the time of the hearing on h[er]motion.\u201d Hensley v. Hensley, 21 N.C. App. 306, 307, 204 S.E.2d 228, 229 (1974) (citing Crosby v. Crosby, 272 N.C. 235, 237, 158 S.E.2d 77,79 (1967)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn a child custody case, the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence, even if there is sufficient evidence to support contrary findings.\u201d Peters v. Pennington, 210 N.C. App. 1, 12\u201313, 707 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAbsent an abuse of discretion, the trial court\u2019s decision in matters of child custody should not be upset on appeal.\u201d Everette v. Collins, 176 N.C. App. 168, 171, 625 S.E.2d 796, 798 (2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAn abuse of discretion results only where a decision is manifestly unsupported by reason or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d Clark v. Sanger Clinic, 175 N.C.App. 76, 84, 623 S.E.2d 293, 299 (2005)(internal marks and citation omitted).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The “General Assembly\u2019s choice to leave \u2018joint legal custody\u2019 undefined implies a legislative intent to allow a trial court \u2018substantial latitude in fashioning a \u2018joint legal custody arrangement.\u2019\u201d Diehl v. Diehl, 177 N.C. App. 642, 647, 630 S.E.2d 25, 28 (2006). G.S. 50-13.2(a) requires that \u201c[a]n order for custody of a minor child entered pursuant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":{"0":"post-325","1":"page","2":"type-page","3":"status-publish","5":"entry"},"yoast_head":"\n