Order denying appointment of parenting coordinator; Rule 11 sanctions The trial court order denying mother’s request for the appointment of a parenting coordinator and granting father’s request for Rule 11 sanctions contained insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. While there is no requirement that a trial court make findings on factors set out in GS 50 91 when denying a request for the appointment of a parenting coordinator, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the trial court make findings and conclusions necessary to address the issues before the court.  In a case that the parties agreed was a high-conflict case, mother requested that the court appoint a parenting coordinator. Father argued that mother made the request in bad faith, seeking only to retaliate against his motions for contempt filed against her. The trial court denied the request for a PC and imposed Rule 11 sanctions against mother, finding that mother’s motion was filed in retaliation for father requesting that the trial court hold mother in contempt for interfering with his visitation as allowed by the custody order. The trial court did not make findings or conclusions regarding mother’s request for a PC.

 

Mother appealed and the court of appeals held that the trial court order appeared to address only father’s request for Rule 11 sanctions. While a trial court is not required to make findings to support a denial of a request for a PC, the court of appeals held that in this case, ‘based upon the findings that were made even more than those that were missing, it appears the trial court was viewing the need to punish Mother for her actions regarding the previous order rather than [making] a reasoned decision of whether a parenting coordinator would serve as a means of reducing the conflict between the parents thereby benefiting the child at issue, whose wellbeing should be the primary focus.” 

The court of appeals remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support both the ruling on sanctions and the ruling on the request for the PC.