N.C. Court of Appeals Issues New Family Law Opinions on February 4, 2026

On February 4, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued several new opinions addressing recurring issues in family law, including child custody, relocation, child support, equitable distribution, and procedural protections in domestic cases. While some of the decisions are unpublished, they provide meaningful guidance for trial courts, attorneys, and litigants throughout North Carolina.

Together, these cases reinforce the appellate court’s continued focus on clear fact‑finding, proper application of statutory standards, and judicial accountability in family law matters.

Watts v. Watts – Custody Orders Must Resolve Abuse Allegations

In Watts v. Watts, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a permanent child custody order because the trial court failed to resolve a material disputed issue raised by the evidence: whether allegations of sexual abuse were proven.

Although the trial court made extensive findings and concluded that both parents were fit, it avoided deciding whether sexual abuse actually occurred. Instead, the court relied on the child’s belief that abuse had occurred. The Court of Appeals held this approach was insufficient. When allegations of abuse directly affect custody and visitation, the trial court must determine whether the allegations are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court also reversed the visitation provisions of the order because the trial court improperly delegated its judicial authority to a therapist. North Carolina law is clear that courts must set visitation parameters themselves and may not leave those decisions to third parties.

Cohen v. Hefetz – International Relocation Requires a Clear Best‑Interest Analysis

Cohen v. Hefetz involved a request to relocate a child from North Carolina to Israel. Although the trial court entered more than one hundred findings of fact and permitted relocation, the Court of Appeals vacated the custody order.

The appellate court emphasized that the quality of findings matters more than their quantity. The trial court largely recited testimony without resolving key disputes, including concerns about safety in a foreign country during an active conflict, neighborhood safety, and the impact of relocation on the father‑child relationship.

When both parents are fit, a custody order must clearly explain why one placement better serves the child’s best interests. This requirement is especially important in relocation cases involving foreign jurisdictions, international travel, and reduced access to the non‑custodial parent.

Cunningham v. Cunningham – Post‑Separation Passive Appreciation Is Divisible Property

In Cunningham v. Cunningham, the Court of Appeals addressed post‑separation appreciation of a marital investment account in an equitable distribution case. The trial court classified the appreciation as passive but failed to value or distribute it.

The Court reiterated that passive appreciation occurring between the date of separation and the date of distribution is presumptively divisible property under North Carolina law. When a party presents competent evidence of post‑separation appreciation, the trial court must make findings resolving that evidence, assign a value, and distribute the asset accordingly.

Because the trial court failed to do so, the equitable distribution order was vacated and remanded.

Flores v. Gutierrez – Temporary Child Support and Effective Dates

Flores v. Gutierrez clarifies several procedural issues that frequently arise in child support cases. First, the Court held that temporary child support orders do not become permanent merely because a case is administratively removed from the active docket. Administrative closure does not resolve a case on its merits.

Second, the Court reaffirmed that permanent child support generally relates back to the date the complaint is filed. Any deviation from that presumptive start date requires written findings explaining why application of the Child Support Guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Finally, the Court held that when a parent fails to provide current financial documentation, trial courts may rely on prior tax returns as the best available evidence of income. The child support order was vacated in part and remanded for additional findings.

Roybal v. Raulli – Military Service Protections and Civil Contempt

In Roybal v. Raulli, the Court of Appeals reinforced mandatory protections for servicemembers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. When a party properly invokes the Act, the trial court must grant a stay and may not proceed with custody or support hearings during required military service or training.

The Court also reversed a civil contempt order because the trial court failed to make findings that the obligor had the present ability to comply with the purge conditions. Civil contempt may not be punitive and requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards before incarceration may be ordered.

Why These Opinions Matter

These February 4, 2026 decisions reflect a consistent message from the North Carolina Court of Appeals: family law orders must resolve disputed issues, apply the correct legal standards, and retain judicial responsibility over custody, visitation, and support determinations.

For parents and practitioners alike, these cases underscore the importance of careful trial‑court findings, adherence to statutory requirements, and preservation of issues for appeal. Together, they provide authoritative guidance on how North Carolina courts are expected to handle some of the most common—and most challenging—family law disputes.