Can North Carolina Courts Refuse to Grant Visitation to a Non-Custodial Parent?

Parents have a protected right to care for their children in North Carolina, and that right affords them some significant protections when it comes to custody and visitation. For instance, third parties like grandparents can seek visitation and custody only in very limited circumstances.

However, when parents are involved in custody disputes, courts may limit or altogether deny visitation to a mother or father. Every North Carolina custody determination is based on one core principle: the best interests of the child. If a court believes that not having visitation with one parent is best for the child, then the court order will reflect that decision.

Carballo v. Carballo

In the case of Carballo v. Carballo, Mother appealed the trial court’s order granting Father primary physical and legal custody and denying her visitation.

The parties had three children during their marriage. They separated in 2016, and in 2018 a consent order was entered granting joint legal and physical custody to Mother and Father. In November 2020, Father filed a motion for ex parte custody alleging that Mother had committed acts of physical and emotional abuse against the children. Further, he stated that the children were refusing to go to Mother’s house. The trial court granted temporary emergency custody to Father and limiting Mother’s visitation to phone calls and FaceTime.

Several hearings and motions later, the trial court entered a final order granting Father permanent primary legal and physical custody and denying Mother’s specific visitation with the children. The order did allow the children to determine, with help from their therapists, what visitation they should or should not have with Mother. Mother appealed this order. Part of her appeal was based on her assertion that the trial court denied her visitation without making requisite findings of fact.

Fitness of the Parents

North Carolina law states that, in order for courts to deprive a custodial parent of visitation, the parent must be unfit to visit the child, or the visitation rights must not be in the child’s best interest. In Carballo v. Carballo, the trial court determined that it could not find that Mother was not a fit and proper parent. However, the court did determine that forced visitation was not in the children’s best interests at that time. Among the numerous reasons for this decision, the trial court referenced:

• The parties’ middle child had symptoms of PTSD, in part due to his dysfunctional relationship with Mother.
• The youngest child showed extreme signs of distress until visitation with Mother ceased.
• Mother exposed children to severely derogatory comments about Father.
• Mother and her family subjected the children to repeated racist and homophobic comments, some of which were internalized by the children due to their bi-racial identities.
• Mother was aggressive and argumentative with the professionals throughout the case, which suggests she communicates with the children in this manner.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did make requisite findings of fact to deny Mother’s visitation. The lower court did not abuse its discretion, and the ruling was affirmed.