Court Opinion

ID: 9596854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:53:45.219425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:36.115206
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
concurring in the result.
As I noted in my dissent in Lambert v. Riddick, 120 N.C. App. 480, 462 S.E.2d 835 (1995), I believe the holding of Petersen v. Rogers is more limited than that suggested by the language of the majority. Because I believe a parent not living with her child in an intact family unit is not entitled to the benefit of the Petersen parental preference rule and because the mother was not living with her children at the time of the modification request, I reject the argument that the trial court, in the modification hearing, was required to award the mother custody in the absence of a finding of her unfitness. In any event, without regard to the construction placed on Petersen, I agree that any movant (including a natural parent) in a section 50-13.7(a) child custody modification hearing is required to first show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child (since the prior order of custody). Ramirez-Barker v. Barker, 107 N.C. App. 71, 77, 418 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1992). If this showing is made, the trial court is required to enter an order of custody that is in the best interest of the child. Id. In making this best interest determination, is the natural parent entitled to a custody order unless the nonmovant shows that the parent is unfit? Under my construction of Petersen the answer would be no because she was not living with the child in an intact family and therefore would be entitled nothing more than a best interest inquiry. Under the majority’s construction of Petersen the answer is less clear and indeed the majority does not reach that issue.