In Fey v. Fey, decided November 4, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered what happens when one parent repeatedly refuses permission for the children to travel abroad. Father Edward Fey was represented on appeal by John C. Vermitsky of Morrow, Vermitsky, Costello Law Group, PLLC in Winston-Salem. Mother Jennifer Fey represented herself.

The decision offers a practical lesson for divorced parents: a requirement for travel approval must be read alongside the rest of the custody order—including its direction to act in the children’s best interests.

When “You Need My Permission” Becomes a Roadblock

The parents’ custody order required advance approval from the other parent before taking their two children outside the country. It also required both parents to promote the children’s best interests.

A separate order appointed a parenting coordinator and gave her authority over certain disputes, including vacations, enrichment activities, and the children’s passports.

According to the opinion, Father repeatedly refused Mother’s requests for international travel. The parenting coordinator reported that he sought concessions in exchange for permission, including four additional custody days or $3,000 per trip.

The coordinator found no allegation that Mother would abscond with the children. Instead, she determined that Father’s objections centered on his inability to afford similar trips and his desire to receive something in return.

What Did the Parenting Coordinator Decide?

The coordinator established a process for future travel requests:

• The traveling parent would provide proposed dates and a destination.
• The other parent would have five days to respond.
• If consent was refused, the coordinator would decide the dispute.
• The process also set deadlines for sharing booking details and providing passports and travel-consent documents.

Father challenged that decision. He argued that the coordinator had improperly changed the custody order without a motion to modify custody or proof of a substantial change in circumstances.

The trial court upheld the decision. The Court of Appeals agreed.

Why the Court Upheld the Travel Process

The appellate court read the custody and appointment orders together.

The custody order required parents to make travel decisions in their children’s best interests. The appointment order authorized the coordinator to help the parents comply with that obligation and resolve specified disputes.

On these facts, the court concluded that the coordinator created a procedure for carrying out the existing orders. She did not make a substantive custody change.

That distinction mattered: because the decision implemented the custody order, the court held that a custody-modification motion and a finding of substantially changed circumstances were unnecessary.

Can a Parenting Coordinator Change Any Custody Decision?

A coordinator’s authority has limits.

Under N.C. General Statutes § 50-92, the appointment order defines the coordinator’s authority. Under § 50-91, fundamental custody, visitation, and support decisions remain with the court.

Fey therefore should not be read as permission to disregard an existing travel restriction. The wording of both orders—and the reasons for the disagreement—were central to the outcome.

International vacations also raise different questions from permanently moving a child. Settlyd’s discussion of relocation after divorce explains why a proposed move requires careful attention to the child’s circumstances.

What Parents Can Learn Before Planning a Trip

Before booking international travel, review your custody order and any parenting-coordinator appointment order with your lawyer.

Make requests early, provide concrete details, and explain any objection in terms of the children’s safety, schooling, schedule, or other needs. A clear process can help parents address disagreements before tickets, passports, and deadlines become another source of conflict.

For a broader discussion of resolving family disputes through structured negotiation, see Settlyd’s article on Collaborative and Cooperative Law in South Carolina.

The practical question is whether a parent’s objection protects the children’s interests—or uses permission to obtain an unrelated advantage.