In Raburn v. Cook, No. COA25-1045 (N.C. Ct. App. June 3, 2026), the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to maintain the mother as the children’s primary physical custodian during the school year, despite significant changes in the father’s circumstances that justified modifying custody.

The father had moved closer to the children, obtained a flexible work schedule, and sought equal physical custody. The trial court agreed that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the prior custody order, noting the father’s relocation, increased availability, and the children’s greater age and maturity. The court also recognized ongoing communication problems between the parents.

However, the Court of Appeals emphasized that proving a substantial change in circumstances does not automatically entitle a parent to equal custody. The controlling question remains what arrangement serves the best interests of the children.

The evidence showed that the mother continued to handle most of the children's day-to-day responsibilities, including coordinating school matters, extracurricular activities, medical appointments, and other routine needs. The trial court also found that the children were thriving in school and would benefit from a consistent school-year schedule that promoted emotional and educational stability.

The appellate court held that these findings supported the trial court’s decision to award the father alternating weekends during the school year while granting the parties equal week-on/week-off custody during the summer months. The court rejected the father’s argument that equal custody was required simply because both parents were fit and capable caregivers.

The key takeaway for family law practitioners is that North Carolina courts continue to give substantial deference to trial judges in custody matters. Even when a parent demonstrates improved circumstances and increased involvement, the court may conclude that maintaining a primary custodial arrangement best serves the children’s stability, particularly during the school year. The case reinforces that the best interests of the child—not parental equality—remain the guiding principle in custody determinations.