Harrington v. Harrington

5 Citing cases

  1. Fields v. Fields

    871 S.E.2d 878 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)

    ¶ 39 We have previously held that "a change in the custodial parent's residence is not itself a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child which justifies a modification of a custody decree." Evans v. Evans , 138 N.C. App. 135, 140, 530 S.E.2d 576, 579 (2000) ; see alsoHarrington v. Harrington , 16 N.C. App. 628, 630, 192 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1972) (citations omitted) (holding the trial court erred in modifying custody of a child when "[t]he only finding of change in circumstances as to [the minor child] was that [the] defendant [had moved to] Mecklenburg County, North Carolina"). However, each of these cases involved one parent's move or plan to move.

  2. Harrington v. Harrington

    210 S.E.2d 190 (N.C. 1974)   Cited 10 times

    The husband appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court modified the order of the District Court by granting custody of Bruce to the husband and by remanding to the trial court with directions to reduce the amount of support payments. Harrington v. Harrington, 16 N.C. App. 628, 192 S.E.2d 638 (1972). In all other respects, the District Court's order was affirmed.

  3. Spoon v. Spoon

    233 N.C. App. 38 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Upholding trial court's conclusion that relocations amounted to substantial change in circumstances affecting welfare of children where conclusion was supported by findings that moves were stressful for children and their academic performance declined

    Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances because “a change in the custodial parent's residence is not itself a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child which justifies a modification of a custody decree.” Evans v. Evans, 138 N.C.App. 135, 140, 530 S.E.2d 576, 579 (2000); see Harrington v. Harrington, 16 N.C.App. 628, 630, 192 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1972) (holding that trial court erred in modifying custody of minor child when “[t]he only finding of change in circumstances as to [the minor child] was that defendant is now residing in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In Evans, our Court explained that the relocation and remarriage of one of the parties could not have been deemed a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of custody because the trial court “made no findings of fact indicating the effect of the remarriage and relocation on the child himself ... [and did] not discuss the impact of the proposed move on the child.”

  4. Gordon v. Gordon

    46 N.C. App. 495 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 12 times
    In Gordon v. Gordon,46 N.C.App. 495, 265 S.E.2d 425 (1980), the trial court ordered a change in primary custody of a child to the mother after concluding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances because the father and child had relocated.

    The mere fact that either parent changes his residence is not a substantial change of circumstance. See Harrington v. Harrington, 16 N.C. App. 628, 192 S.E.2d 638 (1972) (where the only finding of change of circumstance was that defendant, the party seeking custody, "is now residing in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina," held not a substantial change of circumstance). Rothman v. Rothman, 6 N.C. App. 401, 170 S.E.2d 140 (1969) (more must be shown than a removal by one parent of a child from a jurisdiction which may enter an adverse decision to the removing parent), accord, Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E.2d 305 (1977).

  5. Harrington v. Harrington

    22 N.C. App. 419 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    The order provided that the husband was "entitled to reasonable visitation with the minor children," and that the husband was to make support payments of $300.00 per month. The husband appealed to this Court, and in Harrington v. Harrington, 16 N.C. App. 628, 192 S.E.2d 638, the District Court's order was modified so as to grant custody of Bruce to the husband and reduce the amount of the support payments. In all other respects the District Court's order was affirmed.