CHANDA Y. HINSON, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL ANTHONY HINSON, Defendant.
by plaintiff from order entered 14 February 2019 by Judge T.
Thai Vang in Stanly County No. 18 CVD 113 District Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 October 2019.
Law, PLLC, by C. Christopher Adkins, Sarah E. Bennett, and
Kelsey J. Queen, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bryan Family Law, by Gene Brentley Tanner and Kaitlin S.
Kober, for defendant-appellee.
Hinson ("Plaintiff") appeals from an order
modifying child custody ("custody order") entered
on 14 February 2019, which granted Michael Hinson
("Defendant") joint legal and primary physical
custody of their two minor children. We affirm in part and
and Defendant married on 19 January 2007 and separated on 1
June 2017. They are parents of two minor children: S.H., born
in 2006, and T.H., born in 2012. Defendant has served as a
firefighter with the Albermarle Fire Department in Stanly
County for nineteen years. During their marriage, Plaintiff
worked in a "traditional role" raising their
children. Since their separation, Plaintiff works part-time,
sixteen hours per week, providing in-home medical services.
February 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for
custody, child support, equitable distribution, and
attorney's fees. Plaintiff alleged she was a fit and
proper person to have custody of the children, and their best
interests would be served by custody with her.
February 2018, Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for
the same, as well as a motion for status quo order. Defendant
alleged, in part:
3.The Plaintiff has stated that she intends to uproot the
minor children from their home town and relocate to Lincoln
County, North Carolina away from all family and friends and
everything they have ever known.
4.The Plaintiff has shown inconsistency by changing jobs
5. The Defendant has been employed with the same company for
over eighteen (18) years.
9. The Defendant's parents have been actively involved in
the care of the minor children.
requested the trial court to grant him joint custody if
Plaintiff remained in Stanly County, but moved for an award
of primary custody if she moved to Lincoln County.
March 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant's answer
and counterclaim. Plaintiff's reply admitted she has
"considered relocating and that she let defendant know
her thoughts." Plaintiff denied the rest of the
allegations in paragraph 3, as well as those in paragraphs 4
and 9, of Defendant's counterclaim.
parties agreed to joint legal and physical custody of the
children and established a regular visitation schedule. The
parties resolved all issues and the trial court entered a
consent judgment on 29 May 2018.
over two months later on 10 August 2018, Plaintiff filed a
motion to modify the terms of child custody she had agreed to
in the consent judgment. Plaintiff alleged a substantial
change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children
had occurred after the entry of the consent judgment on 29
including but not limited to defendant's change in work
schedule, the children's wishes, mental health issues,
scheduling problems, changes in living arrangements,
inappropriate communications directed to plaintiff and to the
children, refusal to children [sic] to contact plaintiff,
problems regarding eczema and such additional and further
changes which may be alleged and proven at trial.
asked the court to modify the consent order and grant her the
primary care and custody of the children.
November 2018, Defendant filed a motion to modify custody and
also another motion for a status quo order. Defendant also
alleged a substantial change of circumstances affecting the
welfare of the children including but not limited to the
a. The Plaintiff has missed a significant number of
visitations with the minor children since the entry of the
Consent Order filed May 29, 2018;
b. The Plaintiff has refused reasonable weekend visitation
with the Defendant when he was willing to assist with
childcare to avoid taking the youngest child to a funeral
service of a grandparent he does not even know;
c. The Plaintiff has refused the Defendant Thanksgiving
visitation with the minor children;
d. The Plaintiff continues to make derogatory references
about the Defendant to the minor children;
e. The Plaintiff is coaching the minor children of things to
say to their Defendant father in an attempt to alienate the
children from their father;
f. The Plaintiff is attempting to drive a wedge between the
minor children and the Defendant father;
g. The Plaintiff has denied telephone access with his minor
children and oftentimes refuses to answer the Defendant's
calls and ...