WILLIAM R. LEDFORD, JR.
v. Lincoln County
No. 02 CVD 257
AMBER LEDFORD
Thomas B. Kakassy for plaintiff-appellant.
James T. Bowen for defendant-appellee.
TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.
William R. Ledford, Jr. (“plaintiff”), appeals from an order
of the trial court granting primary custody of the parties' minor
child to Amber W. Ledford (“defendant”). Because the trial court's
findings of fact are sufficient to support the custody order, we
affirm the order of the trial court.
On 7 March 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking divorce
from bed and board, child custody, child support, and equitable
distribution. On the same date, an emergency ex parte order was
entered granting plaintiff temporary custody of the parties' child.
Defendant answered and counterclaimed for child custody and child
support.
The matters of child custody and child support came forhearing at the 30 October 2002 domestic session of Lincoln County
District Court with the Honorable Larry J. Wilson presiding. By
order filed 9 December 2002, the district court awarded plaintiff
and defendant joint custody of their minor child with primary
custody to defendant. Plaintiff filed notice of appeal on 18
December 2002.
By his sole assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the
district court's findings of facts are insufficient to support an
award of primary custody to defendant. We disagree.
The district court is obligated to award custody “to such
person, agency, organization or institution as will best promote
the interest and welfare of the child.” N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2(a)
(2003). In making its determination, the paramount consideration
must be “the welfare and needs of the child.” In re Peal, 305 N.C.
640, 645-46, 290 S.E.2d 664, 667-68 (1982). “[E]ven parental love
must yield to the promotion of those higher interests.” Id. If
supported by competent evidence, the district court's findings of
fact are binding on appeal. Blackley v. Blackley, 285 N.C. 358,
362, 204 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1974). When competent evidence exists,
the district court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal
absent abuse of discretion. West v. Marko, 141 N.C. App. 688, 691,
541 S.E.2d 226, 229 (2001).
Plaintiff has not specifically assigned as error that the
findings of fact are unsupported by competent evidence. These
findings are therefore presumed supported by competent evidence.
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). In its order, the district court made the following pertinent
findings:
8. That the parties separated on January 1,
2002, and have an arrangement whereas they
each had custody of the child an equal amount
of the time.
9. That the Defendant mother, in order to
train for her job in photography, moved to
Florida with the intent of remaining a month
or two. During this period of separation, the
Plaintiff filed an action for temporary
custody.
10. The Plaintiff was awarded temporary
custody by a court order which was non-
prejudicial as to the final hearing of custody
with the Defendant having limited visitation.
11. The Court finds the Plaintiff was
unnecessarily defensive of the child and not
generous with visitation concerning the
Defendant and that this was not in the best
interest of the minor child.
12. The Court finds that at best the Defendant
was only able to see the child on every other
weekend and was otherwise limited in her
contact with her minor child.
13. The Court finds that the arrangement
following the temporary order up until the
time of this hearing for child care of the
minor child was in capable hands but said
arrangements lessens the time which either
parent may have exposure to his or her child.
The Court finds that the paternal grandmother
has done an excellent job with her grandson.
14. Therefore, it is the Court's desire that
both parents have the maximum contact with
their minor child.
. . . .
17. The Court finds that both parents have
adequate and suitable housing for their minor
child. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant
are well able to keep the child with him or
her during the night time at their respectiveresidences. Both homes provide a good
environment for the child and the child is
surrounded by extended family that supports
him and cares for him at all times at both
parents' homes.
Based on these findings the district court concluded that both
parties were fit to exercise care, custody, and control of the
child; and the best interests of the child would be served by
awarding joint custody, with defendant having primary custody. It
is clear that the findings support the trial court's decision to
award joint custody to plaintiff and defendant with primary custody
to defendant. Thus, plaintiff has failed to show an abuse of
discretion of the trial court.
Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***