Sneed v. Sneed , 261 N.C. App. 448 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA17-1169
Filed: 18 September 2018
Mecklenburg County, No. 15 CVD 87
JASON M. SNEED, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARITY A. SNEED, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 12 January 2017 by Judge Gary L.
Henderson in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6
June 2018.
Jason M. Sneed, pro se, for plaintiff-appellee.
McIlveen Family Law Firm, by Angela W. McIlveen and David E. Simmons, for
defendant-appellant.
ELMORE, Judge.
Defendant Charity A. Sneed (“Mother”) appeals from an order essentially
granting Mother and plaintiff Jason M. Sneed (“Father”) joint custody of their
teenaged children pending commencement of a reunification program designed to
repair the children’s relationship with Father, which the trial court found had been
damaged by Mother’s alienating behaviors. The order provides that Father shall
have primary physical custody of the children upon commencement of the program,
while Mother’s visitation with the children shall be temporarily suspended pending
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
completion of the program. The order further provides that the children attend public
or private school rather than be homeschooled by Mother.
On appeal, Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her
motion to exclude the expert testimony and report of the parties’ consented to and
court-appointed forensic custody evaluator; that it abused its discretion in
suspending Mother’s visitation with the children pending their completion of the
reunification program with Father; and that nine of the court’s findings of fact are
unsupported by the evidence.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.
I. Background
There were three children born of the parties’ August 1996 marriage, to wit: a
daughter, born March 1999, and two sons, born January 2001 and May 2003.
Father initiated this action by filing a complaint for custody on 5 January 2015.
That same day, Father hand-delivered Mother a copy of the complaint along with a
letter from his attorney, which included the following relevant excerpts:
[Father] is aware of your adulterous conduct. Having
committed adultery and having been caught, it is
appropriate that you vacate the marital residence. Please
make arrangements to do so immediately, leaving the
children in their home and in [Father]’s care. [Father] is
willing to work with you to arrange a reasonable schedule
of shared physical custody.
Pending resolution of [Father]’s claim for child custody,
demand is made that you not remove the children from the
-2-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
State of North Carolina.
Mother’s response to the complaint and letter was to immediately remove the
children to South Carolina without Father’s knowledge or permission, and to cut off
the children’s contact with Father. On 6 January 2015, Father filed an ex parte
motion for emergency custody relief in which he alleged that Mother had an ongoing
relationship with a man who lived in Sweden; that Mother had plans to travel
internationally with the children despite Father’s objection; and that Father was
concerned Mother would leave the United States with the children and not return.
The trial court granted Father temporary and exclusive custody of the children in an
emergency order dated 7 January 2015.
Upon Mother’s return to North Carolina, and despite the terms of the January
2015 order, the parties agreed between themselves to a week-to-week rotating
schedule of physical custody. However, on 19 August 2015, Father filed a motion for
custody evaluation in which he alleged that Mother was not complying with the
agreed-upon schedule; that Mother, who had homeschooled the children since birth,
was alienating the children from Father; and that Father’s relationship with the
children was continuing to deteriorate.
Following a 1 September 2015 hearing, the trial court entered a consent order
appointing Dr. Karen Shelton as a forensic custody evaluator. The court tasked Dr.
Shelton with considering the mental health of the parties, their strengths and
-3-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
weaknesses, the parent-child relationships, the parents’ behaviors that may affect
that relationship, the children’s needs, and any treatment recommendations, and it
requested that Dr. Shelton provide the court with her custody recommendations.
The court also entered an updated “order on emergency child custody,
temporary parenting arrangement” on 3 December 2015. The December 2015 order
explained that the matter had been delayed from January to September 2015 and
that an emergency no longer existed, and it provided that the parties share joint
physical custody on a week-to-week rotating schedule “pending a hearing on
permanent custody[.]” The order addressed such details as holiday visitation,
exchange of the minor children, transportation to extracurricular activities, access to
records, and communication between the parties.
On 10 March 2016, Father filed motions for contempt and custody modification
in which he alleged that Mother was still refusing to comply with the week-to-week
rotating schedule. Father specifically alleged that he had not visited with the parties’
daughter since 1 September 2015, and that Mother had “undertaken a course of
conduct designed to alienate” their sons from Father. Father’s motions were denied
following a 24 May 2016 hearing in which the parenting coordinator, the parties’
daughter, the children’s therapists, and Mother all testified.
A permanent custody hearing took place on 16 and 17 November as well as 5
and 6 December 2016. On the morning of 16 November 2016, Mother filed a motion
-4-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
in limine “to exclude the custody evaluation report of Dr. Karen Shelton and trial
testimony of Dr. Karen Shelton.”1 The trial court denied Mother’s motion and
subsequently accepted Dr. Shelton “as an expert in the field of child custody
evaluation and child psychology.” Dr. Shelton’s expert testimony included her
opinion as to the matters she had been tasked by the court to consider, and her August
2016 custody evaluation report was admitted into evidence.
In an order dated 12 January 2017, the trial court essentially granted the
parties joint custody pending commencement of Family Bridges: A Workshop for
Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships. The order specifically provides:
1. Plaintiff/Father and the minor children shall participate
in the Family Bridges program as soon as administratively
possible and in all events, this program shall be completed
prior to March 25, 2017 when [the parties’ daughter] turns
eighteen (18). Pending the commencement of the
reunification program, the parties shall continue to operate
under the physical custody schedule set forth in the
December 3, 2015 custody order.
2. As soon as administratively possible, Plaintiff/Father
shall have primary physical custody of the minor children
and [he] and the minor children shall attend the Family
Bridges program.
3. Beginning on the commencement date of the Family
Bridges program, and pending the completion of the
requirements as set forth herein, Defendant/Mother shall
have no contact with the minor children[.]
1Mother also filed motions to exclude the testimony “of the minor children’s treating clinicians,
counselors, therapists, and psychologists” and “of Kary Watson,” the court-appointed parenting
coordinator, but she did not appeal the denial of those motions.
-5-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
....
5. The parties are granted joint legal custody of the minor
children.
....
13. Beginning January 1, 2017, [the parties’ sons] shall
cease homeschooling and shall be enrolled in a public or
private school. Plaintiff/Father shall discuss the school
choice in good faith with Defendant/Mother, but shall have
final-decision making authority if the parties cannot come
to a mutual decision.
14. This Order is subject to review pending the completion
of the Family Bridges program and a period of consecutive
no contact between Defendant/Mother and any of the minor
children lasting for ninety (90) consecutive days. Should
Defendant/Mother have contact with the children prior to
the expiration of the no-contact period, the period of no
contact shall begin again . . . until ninety (90) consecutive
days have passed without parent-child contact. At the
conclusion of the no-contact period, this Court will
determine the conditions, timing, and nature of resumption
of contact between Defendant/Mother and the minor
children with the assistance of and input from any
aftercare professional(s).
Mother entered notice of appeal from the order on 10 February 2017.
II. Analysis
Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to
exclude Dr. Shelton’s expert testimony and report and in temporarily suspending
Mother’s visitation rights. She also argues that nine of the court’s thirty-six findings
of fact are unsupported by the evidence.
-6-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
A. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to
exclude Dr. Shelton’s expert testimony and report.
Mother first contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her
motion to exclude Dr. Shelton’s expert testimony and report because neither the
testimony nor report were relevant or reliable as required by Rule 702(a) of our Rules
of Evidence.
“When reviewing the ruling of a trial court concerning the admissibility of
expert opinion testimony, the standard of review is whether the trial court committed
an abuse of discretion.” State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 139, 694 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2010)
(citing Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458, 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004)).
“An abuse of discretion results where the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by
reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
Id. (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
Rule 702(a) “has three main parts, and expert testimony must satisfy each to
be admissible.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 889, 787 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2016). “First,
the area of proposed testimony must be based on scientific, technical or other
specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
to determine a fact in issue. This is the relevance inquiry.” Id. Second, the witness
must be qualified as an expert by skill, knowledge, experience, training, or education.
Id. at 889, 787 S.E.2d at 9. And third,
the testimony must meet the three-pronged reliability test
-7-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
that is new to the amended rule: (1) The testimony must be
based upon sufficient facts or data. (2) The testimony must
be the product of reliable principles and methods. (3) The
witness must have applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case.
Id. at 890, 787 S.E.2d at 9 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
In the instant case, Mother specifically argues that Dr. Shelton’s testimony
and report were neither relevant nor reliable. As to relevancy, she contends Dr.
Shelton’s contributions did not provide insight beyond conclusions the trial court
could readily draw from its ordinary experience. According to Mother, Dr. Shelton
merely provided “a version of facts found . . . after interviewing many of the same
people, and reviewing much of the same records, that came before the trial court.”
Regarding reliability, Mother argues that Dr. Shelton’s opinion was “short on
methodology”; “contains no order of operations, step by step analysis, or information
regarding the principles or methods relied upon to create it”; and “never states the
actual technique used.” The record reveals that Mother’s argument is meritless.
In this particular case, Dr. Shelton spent approximately one year conducting
her custody evaluation, and she issued her forty-three page report on 15 August 2016.
At trial, Dr. Shelton explained that a child custody evaluation is “a comprehensive
evaluation that gathers information in order for the expert to form opinions related
to the court’s determination of child custody and parenting plans.” She then
proceeded to describe the general process of conducting such an evaluation as follows:
-8-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
After a court order is obtained, the [custody] evaluation
includes multiple components. It includes a review of
records. It includes interviews with the parents. It
includes . . . parent-child observations and interviews with
the children. It . . . often includes psychological testing of
the parents. It includes obtaining collateral information
[from] third parties that are familiar with the family, the
children . . . that may . . . have observations or input about
what’s happening in this family dynamic.
Dr. Shelton went on to testify to and elaborate on the conclusions and analysis
contained in her report.
Because Mother has failed to demonstrate how the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting the expert testimony and report of Dr. Sheltonthe
consented-to and court-appointed forensic custody evaluatorthis assignment of
error is overruled.
B. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a conditional,
temporary suspension of Mother’s visitation rights.
Mother next contends the trial court abused its discretion in suspending her
visitation rights without finding that visitation is not in the best interest of the minor
children as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.5(i).
The court has wide discretion to fashion an order which will best serve the
interests of the child; thus, “[t]he decision of the trial court regarding custody will not
be upset on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, provided that the
decision is based on proper findings of fact supported by competent evidence.” Woncik
v. Woncik, 82 N.C. App. 244, 247, 346 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1986).
-9-
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
“While a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation, that right is
limited to avoid jeopardizing the child’s welfare.” Id. at 250, 346 S.E.2d at 28081.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.5(i), the trial court, “prior to denying a parent the
right of reasonable visitation, shall make a written finding of fact that the parent
being denied visitation rights is an unfit person to visit the child or that such
visitation rights are not in the best interest of the minor child.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-
13.5(i) (2017) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the trial court “had ample evidence before him to justify a
conclusion that [Mother] had purposefully engaged in a course of conduct designed to
alienate the child[ren]’s affections for [their] father, and that these actions were
detrimental to the child[ren]’s welfare.” Woncik, 82 N.C. App. at 250, 346 S.E.2d at
281. Moreover, the court did not permanently deny Mother the right of reasonable
visitation; rather, the court specifically found and concluded that “Defendant/Mother
is a fit and proper person to exercise visitation with the minor children, however, it
is in the minor children’s best interests and welfare that Defendant/Mother’s
visitation with the minor children be suspended pending completion of the Family
Bridges program[.]” The court’s order thus complied with the requirements of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 50-13.5(i).
- 10 -
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion “in fashioning an order
designed to prevent further harm to the child[ren] from this type of behavior,” this
assignment of error is overruled. Woncik, 82 N.C. App. at 25051, 346 S.E.2d at 281.
C. The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence.
In her final argument on appeal, Mother challenges findings of fact nos. 23, 24,
25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 34 as unsupported by the evidence.
According to Mother, the only evidence to support findings 23, 27, 28, 29, and
31 came from Dr. Shelton’s testimony. These findings read as follows:
23. During the trial of this matter, the Court heard from
four neutral parties: Lucy Dunning and Maria Curran, the
family’s therapists; Kary Watson, the parenting
coordinator; and Karen Shelton, the Court-appointed
forensic evaluator. All four witnesses indicated, and the
Court so finds, that since the date of the parties’ separation
Defendant/Mother has engaged in behaviors designed to
alienate the minor children from Plaintiff/Father.
27. In her report to this Court, Dr. Karen Shelton, the
agreed-upon and Court-ordered custody evaluator,
testified and the Court so finds that Defendant/Mother
exaggerated her concerns and allegations about
Plaintiff/Father. Dr. Shelton described, and this Court so
finds, that Defendant/Mother acted as a “gatekeeper,” or a
parent who designates or controls access to the other
parent. Dr. Shelton testified and the Court so finds that
the “gatekeeping” she observed by Defendant/Mother was
severe and unhealthy.
28. Dr. Shelton further testified and this Court so finds
that although the minor children’s education has
progressed satisfactorily under Defendant/Mother’s
homeschooling, Defendant/Mother has begun to use
- 11 -
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
homeschooling as a weapon to diminish the relationship
between the minor children and Plaintiff/Father.
29. Dr. Shelton further recommended the intervention of
the Family Bridges program to repair the damaged
relationship between Plaintiff/Father and the minor
children. The Court finds that this program would be in
the best interests and welfare of the minor children.
31. The minor children’s behavior since separation reflects
Defendant/Mother’s efforts to alienate the relationship
between the minor children and Plaintiff/Father. [The
parties’ daughter] has not spoken substantively with
Plaintiff/Father in over one (1) year, and [the parties’ sons’]
behavior toward Plaintiff/Father is dictated completely by
Defendant/Mother. Most recently, an application was
submitted to Liberty Preparatory Academy in [the older
son’s] name. The application deceptively included what
purported to be Plaintiff/Father’s electronic signature,
although Plaintiff/Father had never seen the application.
Further, the application included an email address for [the
older son] that listed [the older son’s] last name as
Johnston, Defendant/Mother’s maiden name. Prior to the
date of the parties’ separation, Plaintiff/Father had a close
and loving relationship with all of the minor children.
Currently, as a result of Defendant/Mother’s acts, those
relationships are strained and damaged.
Mother makes no further argument as to the lack of evidentiary support for these
findings other than to insist that Dr. Shelton’s testimony was inadmissible.
Because Dr. Shelton’s testimony was admissible as discussed above, we
conclude that findings 23, 27, 28, 29, and 31 were supported by the evidence.
Mother also challenges finding 24, the final sentence of finding 25, finding 33,
and finding 34, which read as follows:
- 12 -
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
24. The minor children . . . attended counseling with Ms.
Dunning in the Spring of 2016. On May 24, 2016, Ms.
Dunning testified at a Motion for Contempt hearing in this
matter. At that hearing, Ms. Dunning recommended: that
Plaintiff/Father and Defendant/Mother attend counseling
for co-parenting; that the minor children attend
reunification therapy with Plaintiff/Father; and that
Defendant/Mother receive individual counseling to
alleviate her anxieties about the minor children
establishing a relationship with Plaintiff/Father. The
Court finds that these recommendations were reasonable
and appropriate and in the best interests of the minor
children. Ms. Dunning testified and the Court so finds that
instead of following those recommendations,
Defendant/Mother unilaterally chose to terminate the
minor children’s relationship with Ms. Dunning.
25. Maria Curran supervised the children’s therapy and
conducted family therapy for the parties and the children.
At the trial of this matter, Dr. Curran testified and the
Court so finds that the minor children appeared
unconcerned about the status of their relationship with
Plaintiff/Father. Dr. Curran recommended the Family
Bridges Program, which she testified has a 95% success
rate.
33. Defendant/Mother is a fit and proper person to have
visitation with the minor children. However, pending the
minor children’s completion of reunification therapy with
Plaintiff/Father, such visitation shall be suspended as set
forth below.
34. Since June of 2016, both [the parties’ sons] have been
more engaged in activities with Plaintiff/Father. [They]
have been well-behaved, traveled to family events, and
participated in family activities with Plaintiff/Father.
However, this Court finds that they were “being deceptive”
in their engagement with Plaintiff/Father.
- 13 -
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
As to finding 24, Mother contends the finding “is unsupported by evidence
because it asserts that [Mother] chose to do something ‘instead of’ following
recommendations of which she was unaware.” She argues that the evidence does not
support a finding that Ms. Dunning made any recommendations at the May 2016
hearing, and that Mother was therefore unaware of the recommendations. However,
the evidence shows that Mother and her attorney had been informed of Ms. Dunning’s
recommendations as of May 2016.
Mother also challenges the final sentence of finding 25, stating that while “Dr.
Curran testified she was ‘familiar’ with the [Family Bridges] program, she offered no
recommendation.”
Similarly, Mother’s entire argument as to finding 33 consists of three sentences
in which she takes issue with the trial court’s reference to “reunification therapy.”
Mother states that, “[a]s ‘reunification therapy’ is not defined, [she] assumes this
means the Family Bridges program. Dr. Shelton recommended Family Bridges, and
testified it was not a therapeutic program, but an educational program.”
As to finding 34, Mother contends there was “no evidence that [the parties’
sons] were ‘being deceptive’ in their engagement with [Father].”
We conclude that Mother’s specific challenges to findings 24, 25, 33, and 34 are
inconsequential and do not warrant further review. See, e.g., Black Horse Run Prop.
Owners Ass’n-Raleigh, Inc. v. Kaleel, 88 N.C. App. 83, 86, 362 S.E.2d 619, 622 (1987)
- 14 -
SNEED V. SNEED
Opinion of the Court
(“Where there are sufficient findings of fact based on competent evidence to support
the trial court’s conclusions of law, the judgment will not be disturbed because of
other erroneous findings which do not affect the conclusions.”). This assignment of
error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to
exclude the expert testimony and report of the parties’ consented-to and court-
appointed forensic custody evaluator, nor in temporarily suspending Mother’s
visitation with the children pending their completion of the reunification program
with Father. Moreover, the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is hereby:
AFFIRMED.
Judges HUNTER, JR. and ZACHARY concur.
- 15 -