North Carolina

No numbered general factor list. Section 50-13.2(a) requires all relevant factors, including domestic violence and child and party safety.

Authority

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2(a)

Source framework

No enumeration

Factor structure

No numbered general list; § 50-13.2(a) requires consideration of all relevant factors, including domestic violence between the parties, the child’s safety, and either party’s safety from domestic violence by the other.

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

all relevant factors, statutory preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

Express anti-presumption; joint custody considered on request

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

One year living separate and apart under § 50-6. Section 50-5.1 provides a separate three-year separation route involving incurable mental illness and required medical proof.

Authority

G.S. § 50-6, § 50-5.1, § 50-7

Grounds without a misconduct showing

One year living separate and apart under § 50-6. Section 50-5.1 provides a separate three-year separation route involving incurable mental illness and required medical proof.

Other grounds and proof conditions

Section 50-7 misconduct grounds support divorce from bed and board, not an immediate absolute divorce. They must not be counted as additional absolute-divorce grounds.

Separation

One year for § 50-6. The judiciary’s divorce guide requires separate homes and intent by at least one spouse that the separation be permanent. Isolated sexual intercourse does not automatically interrupt separation under the statute.

Timing

For the § 50-6 route, the cited text imposes no additional fixed postfiling delay. One year of separation and six months of state residence are separate prerequisites. Section 50-8 addresses allegations and procedure.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, divorce from bed and board, § 50-7

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Neither parent is favored on best interests after the modification movant establishes the required substantial change.

Authority

Case law (Ramirez-Barker), G.S. 50-13.2

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

equal burden (neither parent favored)

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

none defined by statute or rule

Effect of silence

No generally applicable deemed-consent procedure identified; existing order terms remain separate

What the court weighs

Best interest governs (§ 50-13.2(a)). When relocation is sought, courts apply the non-exhaustive Ramirez-Barker factors: the advantages of the move in improving the child's life. The custodial parent's motives. The likelihood the custodial parent will comply with visitation orders once outside North Carolina. The integrity of the noncustodial parent in resisting. And the likelihood of a realistic visitation schedule that preserves the relationship. Explicit findings on every factor are not required, but findings must address material issues and relate the relevant facts to the child's best interests. Cohen vacated and remanded an initial permanent order for inadequate findings; Parente remanded a modification order for further findings (Cohen 2026, Parente 2026). To modify an existing permanent order, the movant must first show a substantial change affecting the child's welfare, with nexus findings (§ 50-13.7, Shipman, Parente).

Who carries the burden

The movant bears the burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances when modifying an existing order (Blackley v. Blackley, 285 N.C. 358, 362 (1974)). On the best-interest question itself, 'there is no burden of proof on either party' (Ramirez-Barker, 107 N.C. App. at 78).

Notice and safety exceptions

No generally applicable relocation-specific notice requirement identified. A custody order may impose its own terms; relocation can be raised in the custody action or a motion to modify (§ 50-13.7).

Which moves trigger the rule

No statutory trigger or mileage threshold. The Ramirez-Barker factors are used when a parent seeks to move the child out of North Carolina (Parente: 'the significance of an out-of-state relocation'). In-state moves are ordinary custody questions.

Objections and the effect of silence

No general relocation-specific statutory objection procedure or deadline identified. The other parent contests in the custody proceeding or seeks modification. Silence does not authorize a move contrary to an existing order.

The modification threshold

Required only to modify an existing permanent custody order. Tuel (2020) reviewed an initial permanent-custody order permitting relocation. Cohen (2026) reviewed a permanent custody order permitting relocation in an initial custody proceeding; it did not decide a substantial-change issue. A relocation may itself constitute a substantial change when it affects the child's welfare. Ramirez-Barker says it 'will be a rare case where the child will not be adversely affected' when a move requires substantially altering a working arrangement (107 N.C. App. at 79). Under Pulliam the change may also be beneficial. The order must find the nexus to the child's welfare: In Parente (2026), the findings about the mother's remarriage and relocation opportunity did not adequately connect the changes to the child's welfare; the court remanded for further findings.

Other qualifications

§ 50-13.2(e): time spent on electronic communication may not be used 'to justify or support relocation by the custodial parent out of the immediate area or the State.' Military note: § 50-13.2(f) bars using a parent's deployment as the only basis for a best-interests decision.

Important qualification

Neither parent is favored on best interests after the modification movant establishes the required substantial change.

Burden summary

Neither parent favored on best interests, after a substantial change is established.

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

No statutory or rule trigger

Compare parental relocation nationally