North Carolina trial judges have broad discretion in child-custody cases. What they do not possess is the power to transform an off-the-record chambers conference and a stack of papers into a trial by judicial osmosis.

That is the short lesson of Randall v. Randall, COA25-324, an unpublished North Carolina Court of Appeals decision filed September 2, 2026.

The trial court met with the parties’ attorneys in chambers and off the record. It then announced that it had reviewed the “records, reports, [and] pleadings” and did not “need to hear anymore.” Apparently, evidence had become optional.

Three days later, the court entered a permanent child-custody and support order containing an impressive eighty-one findings of fact and five conclusions of law. Unfortunately, the documents referenced in those findings—including DSS records, medical records, letters, text messages, and materials from other proceedings—had never been marked or admitted as exhibits. They were not even in the clerk’s file. The record also failed to show that either party had been allowed to present evidence.

The Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded the case for a new hearing.

Due Process Requires an Actual Opportunity to Be Heard

Custody cases implicate a parent’s fundamental liberty interest. Procedural due process therefore requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to hear the evidence and refute it.

A conversation among lawyers behind closed doors is not a substitute for that process. Nor do pleadings, affidavits, reports, and correspondence magically become evidence merely because they reach the judge’s desk.

The appellate problem was equally basic: appellate review occurs on the record. When the supposed evidence was never admitted and the discussion occurred off the record, the Court of Appeals had nothing meaningful to review.

The Practical Lessons

Randall offers several reminders for North Carolina custody practitioners:

• A contested permanent custody order must rest on competent evidence received through a fair hearing (notice and opportunity to be heard.)
• Documents do not become evidence merely by being filed, mentioned, or handed to the court.
• Material proceedings should occur on the record.
• Detailed findings cannot compensate for the absence of evidence supporting them.
• When a court attempts to skip the evidentiary process, counsel must preserve the objection and the record.

The Court of Appeals described the resulting order as “wholly unsupported by the record.” Eighty-one findings may look substantial, but multiplying unsupported findings does not eventually produce evidence. Due process still requires the decidedly old-fashioned business of letting the parties present their cases.

Guy Vitetta, Charleston SC

Because Randall is unpublished, it is not controlling authority and its citation is disfavored under Rule 30(e)(3). Its lesson, however, is hardly obscure: before entering a permanent custody order, hold the hearing.