Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walsh v. Jones

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

January 15, 2019

KRISTI LYNNE DEAN WALSH, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH RAY JONES, II, Defendant.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 2018.

          Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 3 August 2017 by Judge Carol A. Jones in District Court, Duplin County No. 05 CVD 1072.

          Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael, Hicks and Hart, P.A., by William C. Coley, III, for plaintiff-appellant.

          White & Allen, P.A., by David Jarvis Fillippeli, Jr. and Ashley Fillippeli Stucker, for defendant-appellee.

          STROUD, JUDGE.

         Plaintiff-mother appeals an order modifying custody of the parties' daughter by allowing defendant-father to resume visitation with the child several years after a custody order which "immediately and permanently suspended and terminated" all visitation and contact of any sort with defendant-father. Where the trial court made extensive unchallenged findings of fact of the positive changes in Father's life since the prior order and determined these changes justify a modification of custody, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the custody order to allow a gradual resumption of visitation with Father.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff-mother and defendant-father are the parents of Tammy, born in 2004.[1] Mother and Father were living together when Tammy was born but stopped living together on 24 September 2005 due to Father's domestic violence. An order was entered in the domestic violence case which granted primary custody of Tammy to Mother and gave Father specific visitation. On 7 December 2005, Mother filed a complaint for custody and child support in this case, alleging Father had committed domestic violence against her, was abusing illegal drugs, and could not control his anger. On 30 January 2006, an order was entered suspending Father's visitation because he had tested positive for use of methamphetamine and marijuana and a referral was made to the Department of Social Services ("DSS").

         On or about 27 March 2006, the trial court entered a consent order in the custody case allowing Father to resume visitation. This order noted that Father had repeatedly passed his drug tests but required him to continue drug testing in the discretion of DSS, to meet with DSS personnel by June 2006 to review the case, and urged Father to participate in an anger management course. In April and May, 2007, Father filed motions for modification of visitation alleging that in late March 2007, DSS prevented Father from having any contact with Tammy based upon Mother's report of inappropriate touching of Tammy by Father. Father further alleged DSS had completed its investigation of Mother's report as of 26 April 2007 and he had one visit with Tammy, supervised by his parents, but another report of inappropriate touching was made to DSS on 3 May 2007, ceasing his visitation again.

         On 23 August 2007, the trial court entered an order including detailed findings regarding Father's drug abuse and anger issues. In the August 2007 order, the trial court found it had "grave concerns about the Defendant's usage of controlled substances, his anger related issues, and his judgment/decision making process" and ordered that he have no contact with Tammy until he complied with the order's provisions. Father was required to submit to drug testing and could not resume visitation unless he was clean for three consecutive weeks; this order set a review hearing for September 2007. The trial court held a review hearing in September 2007 and entered an order again requiring drug testing and allowing conditional supervised visitation if he was in compliance. Another review order was entered in May 2008 which again required drug testing and further noted that Father could file for a modification after three consecutive weeks of clean drug tests.

         In March 2010, Mother filed a motion for modification of custody and emergency relief asking to terminate Father's visitation because he had been charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and other drug-related crimes. Mother alleged Father was not living with his parents, who had supervised his visitation, and was not getting drug tests as ordered. The trial court entered an emergency order suspending Father's visitation. After several continuances, the trial court heard Mother's motion and entered an order in October 2010. The 2010 custody order included detailed findings regarding Father's drug abuse and his guilty plea to some of the criminal charges. The trial court found Father was not a fit and proper person to have visitation or contact of any kind with Tammy. The order granted sole legal and physical custody to Mother and provided

that all visitation(s), association(s), and/or contact(s), including without limitation opportunities for same, of any kind and description, by and between the Defendant and the minor child, [Tammy], shall be and same is/are immediately and permanently suspended and terminated. That, further, neither Defendant nor any person/agent acting on his behalf shall visit, associate with and/or contact, or attempt to visit, associate with and/or contact, in any manner, fashion or way, the minor child or anyone having legal and authorized possession of said child. That any rights, legal or otherwise, of any kind or description that Defendant heretofore had relative to visiting or having contact, of any kind or description, with the parties' minor child, [Tammy], are hereby and shall be immediately terminated and ended; and, Defendant shall have no further contact of any kind or description with the said child.

         In August 2016, Father filed a motion in the cause to modify custody alleging a substantial change in circumstances. Father alleged he had been released from prison in December 2015. While in prison, he had participated in DART, NA, and AA and continued to pay child support. On post-release supervision, all of his drug tests were negative; he was residing with his mother and intended to continue doing so; and he felt remorse for his past decisions. Father asked to resume visitation with Tammy.

         Mother filed a response to Father's motion, asking that his motion be "denied" and "dismissed[;]" her response did not cite any specific rule supporting dismissal. In January 2017, the trial court began the hearing on Father's motion for modification but after hearing part of the evidence suspended the hearing and entered an order requiring the parties to participate in a "Best Interest Evaluation" regarding custody and visitation, to be performed by Dr. Jerry Sloan. The custody hearing later resumed and was completed in June 2017.

         On 3 August 2017, the trial court entered an order modifying custody. The order includes detailed findings of fact regarding the prior orders and history. Findings 11 through 29 address the substantial changes in circumstances regarding Father's cessation of drug abuse and improvements in problem areas noted in the prior orders. Other findings noted that Mother opposed resumption of visitation and that Mother claimed Tammy did not want to visit with Father and was upset by the prospect of visitation.[2] The order allowed Father to resume visitation on a schedule of gradually increasing visitation, starting with supervised visits. The order also required Father to participate in individual, group, and family therapy to address his reintegration into Tammy's life. Mother appeals from the August 2017 order.

         II. Denial of Motion to Dismiss

         Mother contends that "the trial court erred by not granting plaintiff's Rule 41(b) motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the defendant's evidence and also at the close of all of the evidence." (Original in first letter caps.) Mother argues that Father's evidence showed no change of circumstances which affects the interests of the minor child because he cannot ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.