Court Opinion

ID: 9850462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:57:45.096849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:37.542784
License: Public Domain

CALABRIA, Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result, I write separately because I find the March 2000 custody order converted into a permanent order.
The majority correctly set forth North Carolina law, however I find it helpful to review the pertinent precedents. Under LaValley, a temporary order converts into a permanent order when “neither party requests] the calendaring of the matter for a hearing within a reasonable time after the entry of the Order.” LaValley v. LaValley, 151 N.C. App. 290, 292-93, 564 S.E.2d 913, 915 (2002). Although reasonableness must be determined on a case-by-case basis, twenty-three months was found to be unreasonable in LaValley. Id., 151 N.C. App. at 293 & n.6, 564 S.E.2d at 915 & n.6. Moreover, we have previously held “that a year between hearings is too long ‘in a case where there are no unresolved issues. . . .’ ” Lamond v. Mahoney, 159 N.C. App. 400, 404, 583 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2003) (quoting Brewer v. Brewer, 139 N.C. App. 222, 228, 533 S.E.2d 541, 546 (2000)).
The majority explains the delay from March 2000 until November 2001, twenty months, was reasonable because
the record shows evidence that during that period of time, the parties were negotiating a new arrangement where [plaintiff] would move to Texas and the parties would share joint custody of the children on an alternating two-week basis. When those negotiations broke down, defendant sought a modification of the temporary order.2
I disagree with the majority that the parties’ negotiations, comprising only seven months of the twenty-month period, were sufficient to extend the “reasonable time” within which a party may delay seeking a permanent order. In March 2000, the parties entered a con*86sent order leaving “no unresolved issues.” This Court previously held that where there are no unresolved issues, a year between hearings is too long. Brewer, 139 N.C. App. at 228, 533 S.E.2d at 546. In the case at bar, the parties waited twenty months. Although the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a different arrangement, these discussions occurred during only seven months of the twenty-month period. Moreover, the parties lived with the arrangement for nine months, then negotiated a new order for seven months, and then again abided by the order for an additional four months before defendant asked the court to modify the March 2000 order. I simply cannot find that attempting to negotiate a new order in the middle of twenty months of compliance successfully tolls the “reasonable time” requirement and prevents a temporary order from converting into a permanent order. Rather, I find the parties failed to calendar the matter for a hearing within a reasonable time following entry of the March 2000 temporary order, and therefore the order converted into a permanent custody order. Since the trial court properly applied the substantial change in circumstances test required for modification of a permanent custody order, I concur with affirming the order of the court.
I also concur in the result that the trial court did not err in failing to make a finding of fact that North Carolina is the children’s home state. The majority correctly states that findings of fact which support a conclusion that a given state is the home state under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) although not preferred, are sufficient. However, the majority then goes on to support its conclusion as follows:
Moreover, the June 2002 order was a modification of the March 2000 order, which expressly found North Carolina was the home state of the minor children. Once a child custody determination is made, the State “has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” unless: (1) neither parent has a significant connection with the State and substantial .evidence is no longer available in the State; or (2) neither the child nor his parents reside in the State. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50A-202(a) (2001). Since none of the events have occurred that would divest jurisdiction, the trial court properly had jurisdiction over this case.
Although the majority states the June 2002 order was a modification of the March 2000 order, the majority concludes the June 2002 order was not a modification under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7 requiring a substantial change in circumstances. Despite this error in terminology, *87the majority’s analysis is supported by the fact that continuing, exclusive jurisdiction attaches when a court makes a “child-custody determination,” which is defined to include “a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50A-102(3) (2001). Accordingly, although the majority determined the March 2000 order was a temporary order, I agree the court nevertheless maintained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction thereafter.
I concur with the majority on all remaining issues.

. Defendant sought a “modification” of the March 2000 order believing that order was a permanent order and constituted the initial custody determination. However, since the majority determines the order remained temporary, defendant was, under that analysis, seeking an initial custody determination under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2 and not a modification pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7.