Mother had the right to primary physical custody of child pursuant to a court order even if the parties agreed in writing after the entry of the order that child would live with father. A custody order remains in effect until modified by the court, and parties cannot affect custody rights granted by that order by private contract. The North Carolina Supreme Court has not recognized the tort of intentional interference with parental rights. The trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support an order of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 



A custody order granted joint legal custody to mother and father, and primary physical custody to mother with visitation to the father. After the order was entered, father alleged the parents entered a written contract, executed before a notary, agreeing that the child of the parties would reside with father in Rhode Island. After the execution of that contract, the child lived with father in Rhode Island for two years, then returned to live with mother and defendant Chica in North Carolina. The child never returned to Rhode Island.  Father filed this action alleging tortious interference with parental rights against mother and defendant Chica and tortious interference with contract against defendant Chica, arguing that the two defendants intentionally induced the minor child to leave Rhode Island and take up residence in North Carolina. 

The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that North Carolina has not recognized the claim of tortious interference with parental rights. The majority also held that even if North Carolina recognized such a tort, mother had the right to custody of the child pursuant to the court order. Parties cannot modify or alter custodial rights granted by a court order; only a court can modify a court order. Similarly, the court of appeals held that father failed to state a claim for tortious interference with a contract against defendant Chica because the contract between mother and father was not a valid contract. As parties cannot modify custody rights granted by a court order, a contract was not an enforceable agreement. 

The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further findings of fact to support Rule 11 sanctions. Sanctions may be granted against a person who signs a complaint that is not well grounded in law or fact, or that was filed for an improper purpose or harassment. The court of appeals held that a dismissal for failure to state a claim is not sufficient alone to support the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. The court of appeals held that while there was evidence in the record that might establish grounds for Rule 11 sanctions, the judgment of the trial court did not contain sufficient findings to support the trial court’s order.