Case Law Update: Munoz v. Munoz (Custody)
By Munoz v. Munoz, NC Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Custody)
During the marriage, the parties preferred not to place the child in daycare, and so they relied upon family help to care for the child and nearly always had a family member living with them and assisting in care for the child. At the time mother and father separated, mother, who is a member of the U.S. Army, was anticipating a deployment to Iraq. Mother and father entered into a temporary custody order by consent, which vested primary physical custody in father and allowed father and the child to relocate to California. Father and the child then relocated to California, where they were living with father’s grandmother and his uncle; father’s grandmother was acting as a live-in
care provider while father worked. After father and the child relocated, father learned
that she would not be deployed and so filed a motion to set aside the consent order.
After hearing that motion, the trial court entered a new temporary order, again awarding temporary physical custody to father. Approximately 10 months later, permanent custody came on for hearing. The court awarded permanent physical custody to father. Mother appealed.
On appeal, Mother argued that the court (1) failed to give proper consideration to the Ramirez-Barker factors and (2) abused its discretion by considering her military service as a basis for granting custody to father. The Court of Appeals disagreed with mother’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court addressed mother’s arguments as follows:
(1) The Ramirez-Barker factors are not a mandatory checklist for a trial court and the trial court is not required to make findings of fact on each factor considered. A determination of the best interest of the
child is the primary objective. Here, the court found that the parties had never parented without assistance from family, that father had family available and living with him, and that mother had no family or support system close by. The trial court appeared to consider the parties’ respective support systems as a significant factor, and the Court of Appeals cannot say that was an abuse of discretion.
(2) N.C. Gen. Stat. §50-13.2(f) prohibits a trial court from considering a parent’s possible future deployment as the only basis in determining the best interests of the child but does not prevent the
trial court from considering it as one basis among others. Additionally, based upon the trial court’s findings in the permanent order, it’s unclear whether potential future deployment was a factor
that contributed to the decision here.