An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-189
Filed 15 October 2025
Wake County, No. 23CV000996-910
BRYAN FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA FAIRCLOTH, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 11 October 2024 by Judge Damian
McCullers in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
25 September 2025.
No brief filed for Bryan Faircloth, pro se, plaintiff-appellee.
Bosquez Porter Family Law, by Emily C. Jeske, for defendant-appellant.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Amanda Faircloth (“mother”) appeals from an order granting her and Bryan
Faircloth (“father”) joint physical and legal custody of their two minor children. For
the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further written
findings of fact.
I. Background FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
Opinion of the Court
Mother and father separated on 27 July 2022 and divorced on
12 September 2023. They share two minor children. Father filed a complaint for
child custody on 26 January 2023. A temporary order for child custody was entered
by consent on 10 May 2023. The temporary order granted joint legal custody to
mother and father and primary physical custody to mother. On 18 March 2024, the
trial court determined that this matter was “high-conflict” and appointed a parenting
coordinator to assist in facilitating the custody order. The matter went to trial on
19 August 2024.
At trial, mother presented evidence of father’s history of domestic violence
during and after their marriage. For example, mother testified that on several
occasions, father threatened to hurt her, including one instance shortly after their
separation where father stated that he was going to “gut” her. Additionally, mother
testified about an incident on 12 September 2022 in which father confronted mother
when she visited their former marital home to retrieve personal items. Mother stated
that while at the home, father grabbed her by the throat and screamed at her. As a
result of the 12 September incident, father pled guilty to a charge of assault on a
female and mother was granted a domestic violence protective order (“DVPO”).
Mother also testified about father’s lack of compliance with previous court
orders. For example, mother stated that despite an order instructing father not to
change any utilities out of mother’s name, he removed mother’s name from the power
four times. Mother further expressed concern about father’s admitted violation of the
-2- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
DVPO. The appointed parenting coordinator also provided trial testimony about
father’s compliance and understanding of previous court orders. He stated that
father was frequently confused about what was in the court orders but would follow
directives once corrected.
On 11 October 2024, the trial court issued its permanent child custody order
with the following relevant findings of fact:
9. The Court finds that this is a high conflict case. .... 12. Both of the minor children are generally healthy. 13. Plaintiff is currently employed at John Deere and testified that he has a reasonably flexible work schedule. 14. Defendant is currently employed as a bar manager at Brickhouse Bar and has recently engaged new employment at Pinpoint Raleigh. Defendant testified that she has a reasonably flexible work schedule. 15. Both parties have been involved in the lives of the minor children since their births. 16. Both parties love the minor children and have extended family who love the minor children. 17. Both parties are fit and proper persons to have the custodial roles assigned as set forth below in the decretal paragraphs below. 18. The parties are able to comply with this Order as set forth hereafter.
The omitted findings of fact recounted the procedural history of the case, established
the trial court’s jurisdiction, and described the age and school enrollment of the minor
children. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that both parties were fit
to have custody of the children and that it was in the best interest of the children for
both parents to have custody. Accordingly, the trial court awarded joint legal and
-3- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
physical custody of the children to mother and father. Mother filed a Notice of Appeal
to this Court on 26 November 2024.
II. Discussion
Mother raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court violated a
statutory mandate in failing to make any findings of fact regarding evidence
presented of domestic violence between the parties; 2) whether the evidence
presented at trial supports the trial court’s findings of fact, and whether those
findings of fact support its conclusions of law and the award of joint legal and physical
custody; and 3) whether the trial court erred in determining that the legal and
physical custody arrangement it ordered was in the best interest of the minor
children. We address each issue below.
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for challenges to a child custody order is abuse of
discretion. Efstathiadis v. Efstathiadis, 296 N.C. App. 605, 607 (2024). “[T]he trial
court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence,
even if there is sufficient evidence to support contrary findings.” Peters v. Pennington,
210 N.C. App. 1, 12–13 (2011). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citing State
v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78–79 (1980)).
B. Domestic Violence
Mother contends the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact about
-4- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
the evidence presented about the history of domestic violence between the parties.
Generally, when awarding custody of a minor child, the guiding standard for
trial courts is the welfare and best interest of the child. Rosero v. Blake, 357 N.C.
193, 207 (2003); see also N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2 (2025). In determining what custody
arrangement is in the best interest of the child, “the court shall consider all relevant
factors including acts of domestic violence between the parties.” N.C.G.S. § 50-
13.2(a). Furthermore, “[a]n order for custody must include written findings of fact
that reflect the consideration of each of these factors and that support the
determination of what is in the best interest of the child.” Id. Where trial courts
have failed to make critical findings of fact, this Court has vacated the custody order
and remanded the matter for the trial court to make written findings of fact. See
Aguilar v. Mayen, 293 N.C. App. 474, 482–83 (2024).
Here, mother presented evidence of a history of domestic violence between the
parties through her testimony recounting specific instances of threats and violence,
the DVPO against father, and father’s conviction for assault on a female. However,
the trial court made no written findings of fact that reflected consideration of the
history of domestic violence or how its consideration supported its determination of
the best interests of the children.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-189
Filed 15 October 2025
Wake County, No. 23CV000996-910
BRYAN FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA FAIRCLOTH, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 11 October 2024 by Judge Damian
McCullers in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
25 September 2025.
No brief filed for Bryan Faircloth, pro se, plaintiff-appellee.
Bosquez Porter Family Law, by Emily C. Jeske, for defendant-appellant.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Amanda Faircloth (“mother”) appeals from an order granting her and Bryan
Faircloth (“father”) joint physical and legal custody of their two minor children. For
the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further written
findings of fact.
I. Background FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
Opinion of the Court
Mother and father separated on 27 July 2022 and divorced on
12 September 2023. They share two minor children. Father filed a complaint for
child custody on 26 January 2023. A temporary order for child custody was entered
by consent on 10 May 2023. The temporary order granted joint legal custody to
mother and father and primary physical custody to mother. On 18 March 2024, the
trial court determined that this matter was “high-conflict” and appointed a parenting
coordinator to assist in facilitating the custody order. The matter went to trial on
19 August 2024.
At trial, mother presented evidence of father’s history of domestic violence
during and after their marriage. For example, mother testified that on several
occasions, father threatened to hurt her, including one instance shortly after their
separation where father stated that he was going to “gut” her. Additionally, mother
testified about an incident on 12 September 2022 in which father confronted mother
when she visited their former marital home to retrieve personal items. Mother stated
that while at the home, father grabbed her by the throat and screamed at her. As a
result of the 12 September incident, father pled guilty to a charge of assault on a
female and mother was granted a domestic violence protective order (“DVPO”).
Mother also testified about father’s lack of compliance with previous court
orders. For example, mother stated that despite an order instructing father not to
change any utilities out of mother’s name, he removed mother’s name from the power
four times. Mother further expressed concern about father’s admitted violation of the
-2- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
DVPO. The appointed parenting coordinator also provided trial testimony about
father’s compliance and understanding of previous court orders. He stated that
father was frequently confused about what was in the court orders but would follow
directives once corrected.
On 11 October 2024, the trial court issued its permanent child custody order
with the following relevant findings of fact:
9. The Court finds that this is a high conflict case. .... 12. Both of the minor children are generally healthy. 13. Plaintiff is currently employed at John Deere and testified that he has a reasonably flexible work schedule. 14. Defendant is currently employed as a bar manager at Brickhouse Bar and has recently engaged new employment at Pinpoint Raleigh. Defendant testified that she has a reasonably flexible work schedule. 15. Both parties have been involved in the lives of the minor children since their births. 16. Both parties love the minor children and have extended family who love the minor children. 17. Both parties are fit and proper persons to have the custodial roles assigned as set forth below in the decretal paragraphs below. 18. The parties are able to comply with this Order as set forth hereafter.
The omitted findings of fact recounted the procedural history of the case, established
the trial court’s jurisdiction, and described the age and school enrollment of the minor
children. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that both parties were fit
to have custody of the children and that it was in the best interest of the children for
both parents to have custody. Accordingly, the trial court awarded joint legal and
-3- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
physical custody of the children to mother and father. Mother filed a Notice of Appeal
to this Court on 26 November 2024.
II. Discussion
Mother raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court violated a
statutory mandate in failing to make any findings of fact regarding evidence
presented of domestic violence between the parties; 2) whether the evidence
presented at trial supports the trial court’s findings of fact, and whether those
findings of fact support its conclusions of law and the award of joint legal and physical
custody; and 3) whether the trial court erred in determining that the legal and
physical custody arrangement it ordered was in the best interest of the minor
children. We address each issue below.
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for challenges to a child custody order is abuse of
discretion. Efstathiadis v. Efstathiadis, 296 N.C. App. 605, 607 (2024). “[T]he trial
court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence,
even if there is sufficient evidence to support contrary findings.” Peters v. Pennington,
210 N.C. App. 1, 12–13 (2011). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citing State
v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78–79 (1980)).
B. Domestic Violence
Mother contends the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact about
-4- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
the evidence presented about the history of domestic violence between the parties.
Generally, when awarding custody of a minor child, the guiding standard for
trial courts is the welfare and best interest of the child. Rosero v. Blake, 357 N.C.
193, 207 (2003); see also N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2 (2025). In determining what custody
arrangement is in the best interest of the child, “the court shall consider all relevant
factors including acts of domestic violence between the parties.” N.C.G.S. § 50-
13.2(a). Furthermore, “[a]n order for custody must include written findings of fact
that reflect the consideration of each of these factors and that support the
determination of what is in the best interest of the child.” Id. Where trial courts
have failed to make critical findings of fact, this Court has vacated the custody order
and remanded the matter for the trial court to make written findings of fact. See
Aguilar v. Mayen, 293 N.C. App. 474, 482–83 (2024).
Here, mother presented evidence of a history of domestic violence between the
parties through her testimony recounting specific instances of threats and violence,
the DVPO against father, and father’s conviction for assault on a female. However,
the trial court made no written findings of fact that reflected consideration of the
history of domestic violence or how its consideration supported its determination of
the best interests of the children. While the trial court may have indeed considered
the parties’ history of domestic violence, its failure to make corresponding written
findings of fact violates N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2(a). Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s
custody order and remand the matter to the trial court to make written findings of
-5- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
fact in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2.
C. Challenged Findings of Fact
Mother also challenges several of the trial court’s findings of fact and argues
that the findings of fact do not support the trial court’s conclusions of law. Because
we are vacating the custody order and remanding for additional findings of fact, we
do not consider whether the order’s conclusions of law are supported by the existing
findings of fact. However, mother’s challenges to whether the findings of fact are
supported by sufficient evidence propose additional grounds for vacating and
remanding the order. Thus, to fully resolve the appeal and provide guidance to the
lower court, we discuss mother’s challenges below.
1. Finding of Fact 12
Finding of Fact 12 states:
12. Both of the minor children are generally healthy.
Mother challenges Finding of Fact 12 as unsupported by competent evidence. Mother
contends that little evidence was presented about the health of the children and what
was presented mostly concerned the minor children’s past illnesses and injuries.
However, mother’s own trial testimony supports the trial court’s finding of fact.
At trial, mother was asked whether the children were generally healthy and she
responded, “[f]or the most part. They don’t really have any ongoing issues. . . . We’ve
had a couple of ER visits, but other than that, they’re pretty healthy.” While there
was other evidence presented of the children being ill or injured, mother’s testimony
-6- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
about the children’s general health is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding.
2. Finding of Fact 15
Finding of Fact 15 states:
15. Both parties have been involved in the lives of the minor children since their births.
Mother challenges Finding of Fact 15 as unsupported by competent evidence.
Specifically, mother argues that little evidence was presented regarding the care of
the minor children prior to the parties’ separation and that the term “involved” is
inappropriately vague.
While perhaps not explicitly stated at the trial, the parties’ involvement in the
children’s lives since birth could be reasonably inferred from witness testimony. For
example, trial testimony implied that both parties lived together with the children
during their marriage. Additionally, the children’s paternal grandmother testified
that she had been involved in the children’s lives since birth. Taken altogether, this
evidence, combined with a lack of evidence to the contrary, is sufficient to support the
trial court’s finding of fact that both parents have been involved in the minor
children’s lives since birth. Moreover, the term “involved” is often used to describe a
parent’s presence in a child’s life and is not so vague as to require further proceedings.
See, e.g., Aguilar, 293 N.C. App. at 478.
3. Finding of Fact 17
Finding of Fact 17 states:
-7- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
17. Both parties are fit and proper persons to have the custodial roles assigned as set forth below in the decretal paragraphs below.
Mother challenges Finding of Fact 17 as merely conclusory and unsupported by
competent evidence.
Where a finding of fact is essentially a conclusion of law, it will be treated as
such on appeal. In re Adoption of C.H.M., 371 N.C. 22, 28 (2018). “In distinguishing
between findings of fact and conclusions of law, ‘[a]s a general rule, . . . any
determination requiring the exercise of judgment or the application of legal principles
is more properly classified a conclusion of law.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Sparks, 362
N.C. 181, 185 (2008) (alterations in original)). Here, Finding of Fact 17 is essentially
a conclusion of law. As noted above, because we are vacating and remanding the
order for additional findings of fact, it is unnecessary to consider whether the order’s
conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact.
4. Finding of Fact 18
Finding of Fact 18 states:
18. The parties are able to comply with this Order as set forth hereafter.
Mother challenges Finding of Fact 18 as unsupported by competent evidence. In
support of her challenge, mother points to the evidence of father’s lack of compliance
with previous orders.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support Finding of Fact 18. For
-8- FAIRCLOTH V. FAIRCLOTH
example, while the parenting coordinator testified that father was frequently
confused about the contents of the court’s previous orders, he also stated that father
was receptive to his advice and directives after the order was explained. The trial
court’s finding of fact is not a guarantee that the parties will follow the order but
rather a finding that the parties are capable of compliance. Such a finding is
supported by the record.
D. Best Interests of the Children
Lastly, mother argues that the trial court’s custody order is not in the best
interests of the children. However, because we are remanding the matter for further
written findings of fact, we decline to consider whether the vacated order is in the
best interests of the children.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order granting mother
and father joint legal and physical custody of the minor children and remand for
additional written findings of fact concerning the parties’ history of domestic violence
in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2.
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT.
Chief Judge DILLON and Judge MURRY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-9-