Court Opinion

ID: 9895431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 13:06:51.938391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:35.026838
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                    No. COA23-136

                              Filed 7 November 2023

Mecklenburg County, No. 16CVD20214

KARIN A. CONROY, Plaintiff,

            v.

MARK. W. CONROY, Defendant.

      Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 25 May 2022 by Judge Karen D.

McCallum in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

4 October 2023.

      Plumides, Romano & Johnson, PC, by Richard B. Johnson, for the plaintiff-
      appellant.

      James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Preston O. Odom, III, Jonathan D. Feit,
      Kristin J. Rempe, and Caroline D. Weyandt, for the defendant-appellee.

      TYSON, Judge.

      Karin Conroy (“Mother”) appeals from an order modifying the custody of

Mother’s and Mark Conroy’s (“Father”) four children. We affirm.

                               I.     Background

      Mother and Father were married on 4 October 2003. Mother and Father are

parents of four children: Christopher, born on 25 September 2006; Kathryn (“Kate”),

born on 11 August 2008; Daniel, born on 27 December 2009; and Michael, born on 5

February 2012.
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

      Mother and Father legally separated on 7 March 2015.           A Judgment of

Absolute Divorce was entered on 16 July 2018. On 18 June 2019, the district court

entered a Permanent Child Custody Order (“2019 Custody Order”).

      The 2019 Custody Order found the following facts regarding Mother’s

behaviors and her relationship with Father:

            11. Plaintiff/Mother has a concerning history of fractured
            relationships, particularly with members of her family and
            Defendant/Father’s family. Between 2001, when the
            parties met, and the parties’ date of separation,
            Plaintiff/Mother was often angry with at least one of her
            family members or close friends.

            12. In demonstrating said anger, the cause of which was
            often unknown to others, Plaintiff/Mother refused to speak
            to the person with whom she was angry, sometimes for
            months and sometimes for years. Once the minor children
            were born, Plaintiff/Mother often did not allow the person
            with whom she was angry to interact with the minor
            children, despite Defendant/Father’s requests for her to do
            so.

            ...

            16. As of March 2018, Plaintiff/Mother’s inappropriate
            behaviors had not improved. Among other concerning
            behaviors,      Plaintiff/Mother     routinely   disparaged
            Defendant/Father directly to and in the presence of the
            minor children; acted in other ways designed to undermine
            his role as the minor children’s father; unreasonably
            interfered with Defendant/Father’s parenting time; and, in
            making decisions that impacted the minor children,
            repeatedly failed to put the minor children’s best interests
            first, but instead often prioritized being disagreeable with
            Defendant/Father and creating and/or furthering difficult
            and/or less than ideal circumstances for Defendant/Father,
            often at times the minor children were in his care.

                                        -2-
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

            17. In March 2018, and in an effort to spend more time with
            the minor children and have a greater opportunity to
            combat Plaintiff/Mother’s inappropriate behaviors,
            Defendant/Father informed Plaintiff/Mother that he
            wished to extend his alternating Sunday overnight through
            Monday morning. He has routinely done so since March
            2018.

            18. Since March 2018, Plaintiff/Mother has repeatedly
            withheld the minor children from Defendant/Father,
            sometimes for days and once for Defendant/Father’s entire
            custodial weekend.

            ...

            23. Plaintiff/Mother dislikes Defendant/Father’s family
            and is not supportive of the minor children’s relationships
            with Defendant/Father’s family. Plaintiff/Mother has
            disparaged Defendant/Father’s parents in the presence of
            the minor children, refuses to speak to Defendant/Father’s
            parents at the minor children’s activities (at times they are
            there), and accuses Defendant/Father of relying on his
            parents for help with caring for the minor children. The
            Court does not find that Defendant/Father’s parents serve
            primarily as caregivers when visiting Defendant/Father
            and the minor children, but instead come to Charlotte to
            spend quality time with their son and grandchildren.

      The 2019 Custody Order granted Mother and Father joint legal custody of the

minor children. During the school year, Mother and Father shared parenting time

with the children on a nine to five schedule, meaning the children spent nine days

out of every two weeks with Mother and five days with Father. During the summer,

custody between Mother and Father alternated on a weekly basis, and each parent

was allowed to plan two continuous weeks of vacation with the children. School-year

                                        -3-
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

breaks and holidays, including Memorial Day Weekend, Labor Day, Halloween,

Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Winter Break, were evenly divided between Mother

and Father and set on an alternating basis, with Spring Break and Easter being the

exception. Father was granted custody of the children for the duration of spring

break every year, and Mother was awarded Easter weekend beginning in the

afternoon on Good Friday.

      Mother was represented by attorney Tiyesha DeCosta (“DeCosta”) for the

hearings held on 12 and 17 November 2020 regarding her claims for equitable

distribution, child support, and attorney’s fees. Mother was previously represented

by attorneys Gena Morris and Caroline Mitchell, and later by attorney Steve

Ockerman, before seeking DeCosta’s representation.

      Almost two years after the 2019 Custody Order was entered, the Honorable

Karen D. McCallum (“Judge McCallum”) entered an Order and Judgment on 3 March

2021 regarding Mother’s and Father’s equitable distribution, child support, and

attorney’s fees claims. After entry of the 2021 Order, Mother was displeased, as “she

believed that Defendant/Father [had] ‘won’ the equitable distribution and child

support trial.”

      A month after Judge McCallum entered the order, Mother filed a Motion for

Emergency Custody, Motion for Modification of Custody, and Motion for Attorney’s

Fees on 6 April 2021. Mother asserted Father had physically abused Daniel, and she

moved for temporary sole custody of all four children and primary physical custody

                                        -4-
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

on a permanent basis.

      In the same week Mother filed her motion to modify custody, she left a note in

Father’s mailbox stating, “HAS LEAVING YOUR FAMILY BEEN WORTH IT?” She

also reported Father’s alleged abuse to Department of Social Services (“DSS”), which

was the third time Mother had alleged abuse and reported Father to DSS.

      Father responded to Mother’s Motion for Emergency Custody and also filed a

Motion to Modify Custody, Motion for Temporary Parenting Arrangement, Motion for

Sanctions, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Contempt on 14 April 2021. Father’s

motion referenced Mother’s decision to report unsubstantiated allegations concerning

him to DSS, leaving a threatening note in his mailbox, and threatening Father by

promising “the litigation ‘will never end’ and that she will ‘never stop trying to ruin’

Defendant/Father.”

      A hearing regarding Mother’s Motion for Emergency Custody was held on 15

April 2021.   Mother, Father, Daniel, Mother’s neighbor, and a Child Protective

Services (“CPS”) investigative social worker testified.      Judge McCallum denied

Mother’s Motion for Emergency Custody on 21 October 2021.

      Judge McCallum found Mother’s testimony “completely uncredible[,]” because:

(1) it appeared Mother had coached Daniel and Michael; (2) the other children had

“purportedly slept through the entire incident, which is not believable if

Defendant/Father w[as] really punching Dan[iel] ‘repeatedly’ in the nose, head, and

neck”; (3) Mother admitted she had “encouraged” Daniel to get inside the car with

                                          -5-
                                 CONROY V. CONROY

                                  Opinion of the Court

Father after the alleged incident; (4) Mother did not check on the child at school

following the alleged incident; (5) Mother did not report the incident to the school or

the police; (6) Mother failed to take Daniel to receive any medical treatment; and, (7)

Mother had waited four days to report the alleged abuse to DSS. Judge McCallum

also noted and found Mother’s three prior allegations of Father’s actions to DSS each

came “on the eve of an important court date[,]” and each of the prior reports were

“unsubstantiated.”

      In the months following the emergency custody hearing, Mother filed many

motions, which delayed hearings on some of her motions and Father’s motions.

Mother filed a Motion to Recuse Judge McCallum on 29 April 2021 (“First Motion to

Recuse”). Mother asserted she could not receive a fair and impartial hearing, citing

Judge McCallum’s purported facial expressions and remarks she had made during

the 15 April 2021 hearing concerning Mother’s improper retrieval of documents from

DSS, and Mother’s unlawful ex parte emails to Judge McCallum.

      A hearing on Father’s claim of contempt was originally scheduled for 2 June

2021. The trial court continued Father’s motion for contempt, reasoning Mother’s

First Motion to Recuse needed resolution before proceeding on any of the other

pending motions and issues before the Court. Mother voluntarily dismissed her First

Motion to Recuse without prejudice and filed a second Motion to Recuse (“Second

Motion to Recuse”) at approximately 2:15 p.m. on 2 June 2021, the date of the hearing.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. At 4:01 p.m., DeCosta emailed Judge

                                         -6-
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

McCallum and Father’s attorney, Jonathan Feit (“Feit”) a copy of the voluntary

dismissal and the Second Motion to Recuse.

      DeCosta sought a continuance of the 2 June 2021 hearing in light of dismissal

of her Second Motion to Recuse. Father waived prior notice, and Judge McCallum

denied Mother’s request for continuance. At the hearing, DeCosta explained she had

filed the Second Motion to Recuse because Judge McCallum had issued an order for

DeCosta to show cause in an unrelated matter, and she believed this order to show

cause demonstrated Judge McCallum’s “animus” and “bias” towards her as counsel.

      Judge McCallum denied Mother’s Second Motion to Recuse because: “neither

the allegations made nor the evidence presented constitute[d] sufficient evidence to

objectively demonstrate that recusal [wa]s warranted[,]” Mother’s testimony

regarding Judge McCallum’s purported denial of DeCosta’s request to cross-examine

the CPS caseworker was “patently false,” and DeCosta had “elicited perjured

testimony from her client[.]”

      Father rescheduled the hearing on his Motion for Contempt for 3 August 2021.

On 20 July 2021, the court continued the 3 August 2021 hearing, per Mother’s

request, due to a previously scheduled vacation.        Father’s Motion for Contempt

hearing was again rescheduled to 31 August 2021. On 4 August 2021, Mother filed

another Motion to Recuse (“Third Motion to Recuse”), citing Father’s Attorney’s

previous representation of Judge McCallum before she was appointed to the bench.

Judge McCallum referred Mother’s motion to another judge, who heard the matter

                                        -7-
                                 CONROY V. CONROY

                                  Opinion of the Court

on 6 August 2021. Mother’s Third Motion to Recuse was denied after that judge

concluded the court “was unable to find that objective grounds for disqualification”

existed, citing Lange v. Lange, 357 N.C. 645, 649, 588 S.E.2d 877, 880 (2003).

      On 27 August 2021, Father filed an Ex Parte Motion for Emergency Custody

Relief. The motion provided:

             Over the past four (4) months, Plaintiff/Mother’s behavior
             and treatment of the minor children has become
             increasingly violent, erratic, and unstable, culminating in
             a recent incident, described hereinbelow, in which she hit
             the parties’ daughter, Kate, pulled Kate’s hair, took Kate’s
             personal items, choked Kate, and told Kate to “punch me
             [Plaintiff/Mother] in the face” so that Plaintiff/Mother
             could call the Department of Social Services (“DSS”), which
             she has done on multiple occasions in the past. Since the
             incident, Kate has been in Defendant/Father’s exclusive
             custody, terrified to return to Plaintiff/Mother’s residence.
             Defendant/Father immediately called DSS himself, who,
             after interviewing Kate, indicated that Kate should be in
             Defendant/Father’s exclusive custody pending further
             investigation. Although the DSS worker communicated
             the same to Plaintiff/Mother, Plaintiff/Mother stated that
             she “expected” Kate home on Friday, August 27 for her
             regular weekend visitation - in direct contrast with the
             DSS caseworker’s directive.

Judge McCallum granted Father’s motion for ex parte temporary emergency custody

on 30 August 2021.

      On 31 August 2021, the third date Father’s Motion for Contempt was

scheduled for hearing, Mother filed yet another Motion to Recuse (“Fourth Motion to

Recuse”). Mother alleged other details regarding Feit’s, Father’s counsel’s, prior

professional relationship with Judge McCallum. Judge McCallum denied Mother’s

                                         -8-
                                 CONROY V. CONROY

                                  Opinion of the Court

Fourth Motion to Recuse because: Feit had “represented Judge McCallum for a

relatively brief period of time, terminating their professional relationship in July

2018 (before Judge McCallum was elected to the bench)[,]” and both Feit and Judge

McCallum had followed the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission’s

directions regarding when Feit was allowed to appear before her.

      Father filed an Amended Notice of Hearing on 1 September 2021 for his Motion

for Contempt, Motion to Modify Child Custody, Ex Parte Motion for Emergency

Custody Relief, Alimony and Attorney’s Fees. The hearing was calendared for 16

September 2021.

      Mother met with DeCosta on 1 September 2021 for more than seven hours to

discuss the case. At some point, Mother also met with another attorney, because she

was purportedly dissatisfied with DeCosta’s representation.

      Father filed a Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Dismiss on 10 September

2021. Mother was required to file a financial affidavit by 7 September 2021 for Father

to prepare for the hearing on 16 September 2021 on, among other things, Mother’s

pending alimony claim. DeCosta emailed Father’s attorney on 8 September 2021,

asserting she was out of the country on secured leave and would forward the

documents upon her return.

      Mother fired DeCosta on or around 15 September 2021. DeCosta also filed a

Motion to Withdraw from representing Mother on 15 September 2021.

      DeCosta attended the virtual hearing on 16 September 2021, per the North

                                         -9-
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

Carolina State Bar’s instructions.    Both Mother and DeCosta petitioned Judge

McCallum for a continuance. Judge McCallum denied Mother’s motions to continue

given the numerous prior continuances, motions, and petitions filed throughout the

duration of this case, but she granted DeCosta’s motion to withdraw.        She also

explained Father’s Motion to Modify Post-Separation Support would not be discussed

at the hearing because it “wasn’t calendared” and Mother did not receive “fair notice

that [the motion] was going to happen.”

      Mother proceeded pro se for the 16 September 2021 hearing. Although Mother

expressed she was able to defend against Father’s motion to modify custody, Mother

moved to voluntarily dismiss her own motion to modify custody. Mother expressed

she was purportedly unaware she had filed a motion to modify custody on 6 April

2021, which had started this entire series and sequence of current legal proceedings.

      Mother called several witnesses to testify on her behalf.     Throughout the

hearing, Mother repeatedly and vehemently expressed her disdain for and belittled

attorney DeCosta. Mother stated on numerous occasions that she had fired DeCosta

and asked her to exit and “go off the screen” of the virtual hearing. Mother also

repeatedly interrupted Father’s counsel.

      Judge McCallum granted Father’s motion for contempt in an order entered on

2 March 2022, finding Mother guilty of criminal contempt for failing to abide by the

terms of the custody order. Mother was ordered to spend thirty days in jail, although

her sentence would be suspended if she obtained a mental health evaluation. Judge

                                          - 10 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

McCallum also granted Father’s motion for sanctions and motion dismiss and

dismissed Mother’s alimony claim on 7 March 2022.

      An order modifying custody was entered on 25 May 2022. The trial court found

“any trust between the parties ha[d] completely deteriorated” since the entry of the

2019 custody order. The trial court found the following findings of fact regarding

Mother’s repeated frustration of Father’s efforts to co-parent the children effectively:

             a. Plaintiff/Mother has exhibited a disconcerting pattern
             of unstable interpersonal relationships, which the Court
             finds has a severe, negative impact on the minor children
             who are at risk of severe emotional distress. Throughout
             the trial on this matter, Plaintiff/Mother expressed
             significant disdain and contempt for [any] person that she
             apparently perceived to be “against” her, including, but not
             limited to, multiple DSS workers; various lawyers
             (including her own); the undersigned Judge; the minor
             children’s teachers and coaches; and, most commonly,
             Defendant/Father. Plaintiff/Mother even expressed that
             her thirteen (13) year old daughter, Kate, was to blame for
             a number of the issues and concerns raised to the Court.

             b. Plaintiff/Mother has repeatedly made disparaging
             remarks about Defendant/Father in front of the minor
             children, including referring to Defendant/Father as a
             “Jerk,” “f[***]ing loser,” and [an] “a[**]hole.”

             c. Plaintiff/Mother’s behavior is erratic and unpredictable.
             When she becomes angry at Defendant/Father or others,
             she punishes the minor children, showing a willingness to
             humiliate them in front of their peers and others. The
             minor children are suffering because of the
             unpredictability of Plaintiff/Mother’s actions. For example:
                    i. Plaintiff/Mother prevented the minor children
                    from traveling on a pre-planned Spring Break trip to
                    Florida with Defendant/Father in April 2021. When
                    Defendant/Father arrived at Plaintiff/Mother’s

                                          - 11 -
                   CONROY V. CONROY

                    Opinion of the Court

      home to pick the minor children up, the minor
      children    had    been    locked     inside,  and
      Defendant/Father could hear them beating on the
      door and crying to be let out so that they could go
      with Defendant/Father.      Plaintiff/Mother made
      comments to the minor children that they would
      “burn” inside the house.

      ii. Plaintiff/Mother has frequently prevented the
      minor children from attending their extracurricular
      activities when the minor children are in her care.
      On one (1) occasion, when Kate was riding to soccer
      practice with Defendant/Father, Plaintiff/Mother
      threatened to “call the police” and report that Kate
      had been “kidnapped.” She further threatened to
      “yank” Kate off of the soccer field in front of her
      friends and coaches. Plaintiff/Mother[ ] [has] caused
      Kate to become hysterical, ultimately causing Kate
      to miss her practice.

      iii. Likewise, when Plaintiff/Mother has attended
      the minor children’s extracurricular events, she has
      actively tried to prevent Defendant/Father from
      attending same and, on occasions, has caused an
      excessive, unnecessary scene simply because of
      Defendant/Father’s presence. By way of example, on
      an occasion where Defendant/Father attended [ ]
      two (2) of the minor children’s basketball games
      (happening at the same time and location),
      Plaintiff/Mother       attempted       to      have
      Defendant/Father removed from the premises
      because of a policy related to the COVID-19
      pandemic under which the league only allowed (1)
      parent to attend games. When Plaintiff/Mother
      learned that, because of low attendance, the league
      would allow both she and Defendant/Father to
      attend the minor children’s games, she wrote to
      multiple of the league officials, accusing them of
      “sexism.”

d. Multiple witnesses described incidents in which the

                           - 12 -
                    CONROY V. CONROY

                     Opinion of the Court

minor children were present, and Plaintiff/Mother
displayed a complete lack of judgment regarding the safety
and welfare of the minor children.
      i. Following the election of Joe Biden in November
      20[20], Plaintiff/Mother became offended by a
      comment made by one of Chris’s friends.
      Plaintiff/Mother responded by telling the child in the
      presence of her own minor children that he had “no
      friends;” by calling him names, including a “little
      shit;” and by confiscating and keeping the child’s cell
      phone. Bizarrely, Plaintiff/Mother brought this
      child’s mother, Karin Simoneau (hereinafter “Ms,
      Simoneau”) in to testify on her behalf.            Ms.
      Simoneau testified that her son was so afraid of
      Plaintiff/Mother after the Incident that her husband
      had to go to Plaintiff/Mother’s home to retrieve their
      son’s cell phone on their son’s behalf. Throughout
      her own and Ms. Simoneau’s testimony,
      Plaintiff/Mother completely failed to recognize any
      problem with her own behavior (directed at a child)
      and, instead, blamed said child for “provoking” her.

      ii. Plaintiff/Mother has destroyed the minor
      children’s electronic devices as a means of
      punishment on multiple occasions in the minor
      children’s presence by throwing them, cracking
      them, and hitting them until they shatter. It is not
      in the minor children’s best interests to witness such
      violent outbursts.

e. Plaintiff/Mother’s choices and actions are largely focused
on her anger toward and disdain for Defendant/Father, and
she fails entirely to recognize how her actions have a
negative impact on her children. For example:
       i. As mentioned above, Plaintiff/Mother has
       arbitrarily kept the minor children from attending
       their extracurricular activities on a number of
       occasions without any justification or reasoning. At
       the end of Kate’s soccer season, Plaintiff/Mother
       refused to allow Kate to attend a tournament with
       her team in which all of the teammates stayed

                            - 13 -
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

                   together in a hotel and that acted as an end of the
                   season celebration. Although Defendant/Father
                   both offered to take Kate to the tournament and to
                   pay for lodging for Plaintiff/Mother to take Kate to
                   the tournament, Plaintiff/Mother refused to allow
                   Kate to attend. Plaintiff/Mother seemed to have no
                   understanding or acknowledgement of the minor
                   children’s feelings related to arbitrary feelings like
                   this one.

                   ii. Plaintiff/Mother regularly interferes in the minor
                   children’s     ability   to     communicate       with
                   Defendant/Father when the children are in her care.
                   She frequently takes the children’s electronic
                   devices, requiring Defendant/Father to go through
                   Plaintiff/Mother in order to speak to the children,
                   which often involves Plaintiff/Mother verbally
                   berating and/or disparaging Defendant/Father in
                   the minor children’s presence. On at least one
                   occasion, Plaintiff/Mother has even unplugged the
                   landline so that the children and Defendant/Father
                   had no way of contacting one another.

                   iii. Plaintiff/Mother has, on numerous occasions,
                   intentionally interfered in Defendant/Father’s time
                   and plans with the minor children. In addition to
                   interference in the Florida spring break trip,
                   described hereinabove, Plaintiff/Mother also
                   interfered in Defendant/Father’s summer vacation
                   to Boston with the minor children.              When
                   Defendant/Father told Plaintiff/Mother that he
                   needed to pick the minor children up at a specific
                   time to make their flight to Boston, Plaintiff/Mother
                   chose to arbitrarily withhold the children until later
                   in the afternoon, causing the family to miss their
                   original flight.

      The trial court also made several findings regarding the ways Mother “presents

danger to the minor children’s physical and emotional well-being”:

                                        - 14 -
                    CONROY V. CONROY

                     Opinion of the Court

i. On Wednesday, August 25, 2021, the parties’ daughter,
Kate, began to frantically text Defendant/Father regarding
one of Plaintiff/Mother’s outbursts, stating that
Plaintiff/Mother was “going crazy,” “attacking [Kate],” and
“throwing my stuff away.” Kate further stated “shes (sic)
hurting me and I cant (sic) do this anymore she grabbed
my throat multiple times and tried to choke me.”
Defendant/Father immediately drove to Plaintiff/Mother’s
home, where Kate was standing in the front yard, crying
hysterically. As Defendant/Father pulled up, Kate ran to
Defendant/Father’s car. Defendant/Father learned that
Plaintiff/Mother had hit Kate, pulled Kate’s hair, took
Kate’s personal items, choked Kate, and told Kate to
“punch me [Plaintiff/Mother] in the face” so that
Plaintiff/Mother could call DSS. She further told Kate, as
she has on numerous occasions in the past, that Kate is no
longer welcome to live in her home and that she should go
live with Defendant/Father.

ii. The repeated involvement of DSS is not in the minor
children’s best interests. The DSS caseworker, Elisa
Guarda (“Ms. Guarda”), testified related to her concerns
about Kate’s well-being specifically, including that Kate
expressed that she had to “walk on eggshells” around
Plaintiff/Mother. She also expressed concern about the
shocking nature of Kate’s allegations of Plaintiff/Mother’s
physical violence.

iii. Plaintiff/Mother has historically focused her anger on
one of the minor children at a time, often encouraging the
other three (3) children to “gang up” on the child who is
currently the object of her ire. Plaintiff/Mother has
encouraged her three (3) sons to bully their sister,
including allowing, and even encouraging, the three (3)
boys to call their sister “fat.”

iv. On other occasions, Plaintiff/Mother has told whichever
child is her current focus that they are “no longer welcome”
in Plaintiff/Mother’s home. Since the entry of the 2019
Order, she has, on numerous occasions, dropped one (1) or
more of the minor children off at Defendant/Father’s house

                            - 15 -
                                CONROY V. CONROY

                                 Opinion of the Court

             unannounced, stating that that child (or children) are no
             longer welcome to live with her. She has stated that she
             will “sign” the children over to Defendant/Father when she
             becomes angry at the children, including in the presence of
             one or all of the children.

             v. Plaintiff/Mother’s emotional outbursts have led her to
             behave recklessly in front of the minor children.
             Plaintiff/Mother has waved a gun around while “fake”
             bullets fall out. Likewise, Plaintiff/Mother has repeatedly
             destroyed the minor children’s property – in the minor
             children’s presence – including smashing at least three (3)
             iPads by throwing them violently to the ground.

             vi. Plaintiff/Mother has resorted to physical discipline in
             the past, including, beating the minor children with a
             wooden spoon and digging her nails into the minor children
             until she draws blood.

      The trial court concluded “[a] substantial change in circumstances affecting

the best interests of the minor children ha[d] occurred” to warrant a modification of

the 2019 Custody order. The court changed the visitation schedule between Mother

and Father. Mother was awarded visitation with Chris, Daniel, and Michael every

other weekend from Friday evening until Monday morning, as well as dinner each

Wednesday evening. Mother was awarded a FaceTime phone call once each evening.

The schedule regarding holidays and school-year breaks remained unchanged and

were evenly divided between Mother and Father. The only change in the holidays

and school-year breaks schedule was that “Kate [was] allowed, but not required, to

follow” the schedule.

      Mother filed a timely notice of appeal regarding the custody order on 23 June

                                        - 16 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                       Opinion of the Court

2022. Mother’s notice of appeal regarding the trial court’s denial of two of her motions

to recuse, both entered on 21 October 2021, were not timely made, are not properly

before us, and are dismissed.

                                 II.      Jurisdiction

      Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(2) (2021).

                                       III.   Issues

      Mother argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s

motion to continue the 16 September 2021 hearing; (2) erred by not allowing Mother

additional time to present her case or rebuttal evidence; (3) the trial court’s findings

of fact are not supported by the evidence; (4) the trial court erred by determining a

substantial change of circumstances had occurred affecting the welfare of the

children; and, (5) the trial court abused its discretion by determining the children’s

best interests were served by placing them in Father’s primary custody.

              IV.   Motion to Continue & Duration of Hearing

      Mother argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to

continue and asserts the trial court’s failure to allow her motion to continue “denied

her [of her] constitutional right to parent her children.” She also argues the trial

court abused its discretion by limiting each side to two-and-a-half hours to present

evidence.

                                A. Standard of Review

      “Ordinarily, a motion to continue is addressed to the discretion of the trial

                                              - 17 -
                                   CONROY V. CONROY

                                    Opinion of the Court

court, and absent a gross abuse of that discretion, the trial court’s ruling is not subject

to review.” In re A.L.S., 374 N.C. 515, 516-17, 843 S.E.2d 89, 91 (2020) (quoting State

v. Walls, 342 N.C. 1, 24, 463 S.E.2d 738, 748 (1995)).

       When the motion to continue is based on a constitutional right and asserted

before the trial court, “the motion presents a question of law[,] and the order of the

court is reviewable.” Id. at 517, 843 S.E.2d at 91 (quoting State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C.

690, 698, 174 S.E.2d 526, 531 (1970)). If the movant failed to “assert in the trial court

that a continuance was necessary to protect a constitutional right,” then the

unpreserved constitutional argument is waived, and the appellate court “review[s]

the court’s ruling on the motion to continue for abuse of discretion.” In re A.M.C., 381

N.C. 719, 722-23, 874 S.E.2d 493, 496 (2022) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted).

                                      B. Analysis

       Mother cites Pickard Roofing Co., Inc. v. Barbour to support her argument that

the trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue the hearing due to DeCosta’s

withdrawal. 94 N.C. App. 688, 381 S.E.2d 341 (1989). Father asserts Mother’s

reliance on Pickard Roofing defeats her claim. In Pickard Roofing, the counsel’s

decision to withdraw “was necessitated by the party’s decision to terminate his

employment one day before the day on which the party knew his case was scheduled

to be tried.” Id. at 692, 381 S.E.2d at 343.

       This Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding: the

                                           - 18 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

defendant “should have made a decision with respect to representation by counsel

prior to the eve of trial,” and “[n]o circumstances beyond the control of the defendant

ha[d] prevented him from appearing in court with an attorney of his choice.” Id. at

691, 381 S.E.2d at 343.

      Similar to the defendant in Pickard Roofing, Mother has “overemphasize[d]

the fact that h[er] attorney was allowed to withdraw the day before the trial was

scheduled to commence[,]” and “simultaneously de-emphasize[d] the reason why the

attorney withdrew, because [Mother] terminated h[er] employment.” Id. at 692, 381

S.E.2d at 343.

      The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the oral motion on the

prior-noticed and scheduled date of the hearing to continue the hearing. Id. See also

Chris v. Hill, 45 N.C. App. 287, 290, 262 S.E.2d 716, 718 (1980) (“[A] party to a lawsuit

must give it the attention a prudent man gives to his important business.” (citations

omitted)); Wayne v. Jones, 79 N.C. App. 474, 475, 339 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1986) (“The

defendant received reasonable notice of his attorney’s withdrawal as evidenced by the

defendant’s statement in court that he did not want a lawyer.”); McIntosh v.

McIntosh, 184 N.C. App. 697, 702, 646 S.E.2d 820, 824 (2007) (finding no abuse of

discretion in trial court’s denial of a motion for continuance “[i]n light of the numerous

and lengthy delays in hearing th[e] case”). Mother’s argument is without merit.

      Mother failed to argue the trial court’s denial of her motion to continue denied

her the constitutional right to parent her children. Mother’s purported constitutional

                                          - 19 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

arguments on appeal are waived and dismissed. In re A.M.C., 381 N.C. at 722-23,

874 S.E.2d at 496.

      Mother was fully aware of the time constraints the court established. The trial

court explained at the beginning of the trial that the duration was set for five hours,

divided evenly between the two parties. Mother was also aware she needed to track

her time. Mother asked the trial court: “And Ms. – I mean, Your Honor, as far as

time goes, how are we doing time?· Is this, like, my time, and I need to start putting

down the time that I start speaking?”

      The trial court also addressed how long each party should take for lunch to

make sure each side had an equal amount of time to present their case.

             MR. FEIT:· And Your Honor, just before Ms. Conroy asks
             a question, we’ve got until five o’clock, from a budgeting
             time perspective. What time would you like to break?·
             What time would you like to come back, so we can all make
             sure that we have the – equal, same amount of time.

             THE COURT: All right. Do we want to do an hour for
             lunch, or half hour?

             MR. FEIT:· Half hour’s fine –

             MS. CONROY:· Half hour’s fine with me.

      Furthermore, while Mother only left five minutes for her closing arguments,

the trial court and Feit allowed Mother to give a twenty-minute closing argument.

Mother’s argument is without merit. See Watters v. Parrish, 252 N.C. 787, 791, 115

S.E.2d 1, 4 (1960) (“[T]here is power inherent in every court to control the disposition

                                          - 20 -
                                     CONROY V. CONROY

                                      Opinion of the Court

of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for

litigants.” (citation omitted)).

                               V.      Findings of Fact

       Mother argues several of the court’s findings of fact are not supported by the

evidence, including the findings that: Mother had “disdain and contempt for any

person that she apparently perceived to be ‘against’ her,” including her lawyer,

Father’s lawyer, Judge McCallum, multiple DSS workers, and the children’s teachers

and coaches; the children were “beating on the door and crying” to travel for spring

break with Father, and Mother said she would let them “burn”; Mother behaved

erratically; Mother was “oblivious” to the consequences of her actions; Mother failed

to recognize her own “poor decision-making” and “blamed others,” including Kate;

Mother wrote to multiple league officials saying they were “sexist” when Father was

allowed to attend the children’s games; Mother displayed a “complete lack of

judgment” for the “safety and welfare” of the children, including the incident with her

child’s friend about Joe Biden following the 2020 election; and, the DSS worker’s

concerns about Kate’s “well-being” and her shock regarding Mother’s “physical

violence” towards Kate.

                                   A. Standard of Review

              When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a
              motion for the modification of an existing child custody
              order, the appellate courts must examine the trial court’s
              findings of fact to determine whether they are supported
              by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such

                                             - 21 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

             relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
             adequate to support a conclusion.

Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471, 474, 586 S.E.2d 250, 253 (2003) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted).

      The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the admission of and

credibility accorded to evidence, because the court has the opportunity to hear and

observe the witnesses and to assess credibility. Id.; Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616,

624, 501 S.E.2d 898, 902 (1998). “As a result, we have held that the trial court’s

‘findings of fact have the force and effect of a verdict by a jury and are conclusive on

appeal if there is evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain

findings to the contrary.’” Pulliam, 348 N.C. at 625, 501 S.E.2d at 903 (quoting

Williams v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 288 N.C. 338, 342, 218 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1975)).

      Unobjected-to findings of fact are binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman,

330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991) (“Where no exception is taken to a finding

of fact by the trial court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent

evidence and is binding on appeal.” (citations omitted)). When a challenged finding

of fact is not necessary to support a trial court’s conclusions, those findings “need not

be reviewed on appeal.” See In re C.J., 373 N.C. 260, 262, 837 S.E.2d 859, 860 (2020)

(citation omitted).

                                     B. Analysis

      Here, substantial evidence, through properly admitted testimony and other

                                          - 22 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

evidence in the record, exists to support each of the legally relevant and necessary

findings of fact Mother challenges on appeal. Shipman, 357 N.C. at 474, 586 S.E.2d

at 253. We need not review those portions of the findings of fact unnecessary to

support the trial court’s conclusions, such as specific evidence of the kids crying and

banging on the door to leave with Father on spring break. In re C.J., 373 N.C. at 262,

837 S.E.2d at 860. Mother’s argument is without merit.

            VI.   Substantial Change & Custody Determination

      Mother asserts the trial court erred by determining a substantial change of

circumstances had occurred affecting the welfare of the children. Mother argues the

trial court erred by finding her behavior constituted a substantial change because:

she has always had “poor interpersonal relationships[,]” her “overall behavior”

towards Father has been erratic and unpredictable for years, and she has often

“ma[de] disparaging remarks about [Father] while the children were present[.]”

      Although Mother concedes those alleged behaviors may have made the trial

court “unhappy,” she asserts all of the behaviors contained in the modification order

“existed at the time of the original trial” in 2019. Mother argues those findings of fact

cannot serve as a basis for a “substantial change” of circumstances.

      Mother also argues the trial court abused its discretion by placing the children

in Father’s primary custody. If this Court holds a substantial change occurred to

warrant a modification of the 2019 Custody Order, she argues the trial court failed

to determine how any purported changes affected the welfare of the children.

                                          - 23 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

                               A. Standard of Review

      Wide discretion is vested in the trial judge when awarding primary custody of

a minor child. Shamel v. Shamel, 16 N.C. App. 65, 66, 190 S.E.2d 856, 857 (1972).

“It is well established that where matters are left to the discretion of the trial court,

appellate review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of

discretion.” White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985). “A trial

court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its actions are

manifestly unsupported by reason[,]” or has misapprehended and committed an error

of law. Id.

      A trial court may not modify a permanent child custody order unless it finds a

substantial change in circumstances exists affecting the welfare of the child.

Simmons v. Arriola, 160 N.C. App. 671, 674, 586 S.E.2d 809, 811 (2003). Whether a

substantial change in circumstances exists for the purpose of modifying a child

custody order is a legal conclusion. Spoon v. Spoon, 233 N.C. App. 38, 43, 755 S.E.2d

66, 70 (2014). “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full

review.” State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011) (citations

omitted).

                                     B. Analysis

      “A trial court may order the modification of an existing child custody order if

the court determines that there has been a substantial change of circumstances

affecting the child’s welfare and that modification is in the child’s best interests.”

                                          - 24 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

Spoon, 233 N.C. App. at 41, 755 S.E.2d at 69 (citing Shipman, 357 N.C. at 473, 586

S.E.2d at 253); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50–13.7 (2021). The reason a substantial change of

circumstances is required before a trial court may modify a custody order is to prevent

dissatisfied parties from relitigating in another court in hopes of reaching a different

conclusion. Newsome v. Newsome, 42 N.C. App. 416, 425, 256 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1979).

                                1. Substantial Change

      This   Court    has   previously    addressed       whether   two   parents’   poor

communications with and maltreatment of one another constitutes a substantial

change in circumstances, notwithstanding the parents’ prior longstanding history of

conflicts and poor communication with one another:

                    It is beyond obvious that a parent’s unwillingness or
             inability to communicate in a reasonable manner with the
             other parent regarding their child’s needs may adversely
             affect a child, and the trial court’s findings abundantly
             demonstrate these communication problems and the
             child’s resulting anxiety from her father’s actions. While
             father is correct that this case overall demonstrates a
             woeful refusal or inability of both parties to communicate
             with one another as reasonable adults on many occasions,
             we can find no reason to question the trial court’s finding
             that these communication problems are presently having a
             negative impact on Reagan’s welfare that constitutes a
             change of circumstances. In fact, it is foreseeable the
             communication problems are likely to affect Reagan more
             and more as she becomes older and is engaged in more
             activities which require parental cooperation and as she is
             more aware of the conflict between her parents. Therefore,
             we conclude that the binding findings of fact support the
             conclusion that there was a substantial change of
             circumstances justifying modification of custody. This
             argument is overruled.

                                          - 25 -
                                 CONROY V. CONROY

                                  Opinion of the Court

Laprade v. Barry, 253 N.C. App. 296, 303-04, 800 S.E.2d 112, 117 (2017) (citing

Shipman, 357 N.C. at 473-75, 586 S.E.2d at 253-54). See also Shell v. Shell, 261 N.C.

App. 30, 36-38, 819 S.E.2d 566, 572-73 (2018) (citing id.).

      The facts before us are similar to those in Laprade. While Mother and Father

have always had conflicts and struggled to communicate effectively, those

“communication problems are presently having a negative impact on [the four

children’s] welfare that constitutes a change of circumstances.” Laprade, 253 N.C.

App. at 304, 800 S.E.2d at 117 (citation omitted).

      It is also “foreseeable” that Mother’s and Father’s inability to communicate and

cooperate as parents of minor children are “likely to affect” Daniel, Michael,

Christopher, and Kate “more and more as [the children] become[ ] older and [are]

engaged in more activities which require parental cooperation and as [they become]

more aware of the conflict between [their] parents.” Id.

      The trial court did not err by determining Mother’s and Father’s continued

communication problems and their failure or inability to cooperate and co-parent

constituted a substantial change. Id.; Shell, 261 N.C. App. at 36-38, 819 S.E.2d at

572-73. Mother’s argument is overruled.

                              2. Custody Determination

      If a trial court fails to determine whether a change “positively or negatively”

affected the child, the custody matter must be remanded to the trial court to

                                         - 26 -
                                 CONROY V. CONROY

                                  Opinion of the Court

determine whether the changes affected the child and, if so, what custody

determination is in the child’s best interest. Johnson v. Adolf, 149 N.C. App. 876,

878, 561 S.E.2d 588, 589 (2002) (citing Pulliam, 348 N.C. at 620, 501 S.E.2d at 900).

      Here, the trial court made specific findings of fact regarding how Mother’s

current and more aggressive behaviors had affected the “physical and emotional

stability and well-being” of the children and provided a six-part list with specific

examples of findings.   The trial court also concluded “[a] substantial change in

circumstances affecting the best interests of the minor children ha[d] occurred[.]”

      The trial court made the necessary and supported findings of fact to find a

substantial change of circumstances had occurred and the conclusions of law to

warrant a modification of the 2019 Custody Order. The trial court did not abuse its

“best interests” discretion by awarding primary custody of the children to Father. See

id.; Shamel, 16 N.C. App. at 66, 190 S.E.2d at 857; White, 312 N.C. at 777, 324 S.E.2d

at 833. Mother’s argument is overruled.

                              VII.    Conclusion

      Mother’s failure to raise her constitutional parental rights arguments before

the trial court on her motions to continue waived her argument on appeal.

      Mother’s challenge to the trial court’s discretionary denial of her untimely and

unsupported motion to continue lacks merit. Her actions to undermine and terminate

her counsel’s representation supports the court’s allowance of her counsel’s motion to

withdraw. Mother had prior notice of the trial court’s allowance of five (5) hours for

                                         - 27 -
                                  CONROY V. CONROY

                                   Opinion of the Court

the parties to equally present their evidence and arguments.        She was granted

additional time to present her closing arguments within the discretion of the trial

court.

         The evidence supports and the trial court made the necessary findings of fact

of a substantial change of circumstances to warrant a conclusion to modify the 2019

Custody Order in the best interests of the minor children. The order appealed from

is affirmed. It is so ordered.

         AFFIRMED.

         Judge HAMPSON and Judge CARPENTER concur.

                                          - 28 -