In Bossian v. Chica, 297 N.C. App. 1 (2024), the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed an unusual lawsuit that arose from a long-running custody battle. The case highlights the limits of civil claims between parents (and third parties) when custody orders are already in place, and it underscores the importance of following proper family law procedures rather than turning to unrelated tort theories.
Background of the Dispute
Dennis Bossian (“Father”) and Kimberly Bossian (“Mother”) divorced after having two children together. A 2015 custody order granted both parents joint legal custody, but gave Mother primary physical custody, with visitation rights for Father, who lived in Rhode Island.
In 2016, the parents informally agreed that one child, J.D., would live with Father in Rhode Island. The child did so for about two years before returning to North Carolina to live with Mother and her partner, Andrew Chica, in 2018. Importantly, the 2015 custody order was never modified by the court to reflect this change.
Later, Mother pursued Father for child support arrears and related obligations. In response, Father—acting pro se—filed a civil lawsuit against Mother and Chica, alleging:
– Tortious interference with parental rights
– Libel per se (against Mother, for her claims about unpaid support)
– Tortious interference with contract (against Chica, for allegedly undermining the parents’ “consent agreement” about custody)
The trial court dismissed all claims and sanctioned Father under Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, awarding attorney’s fees to the defendants. Father appealed.
Court of Appeals’ Analysis
1. Tortious Interference with Parental Rights
The Court rejected Father’s attempt to frame his claim as “interference with parental rights.” Even assuming such a tort existed in North Carolina, the facts didn’t support it.
– The 2015 custody order remained in effect throughout the events. That order gave Mother primary custody, meaning she had the legal right to have J.D. live with her.
– Even if Mother “induced” J.D. to leave Rhode Island, her actions were consistent with her rights under the custody order.
– Chica, as Mother’s partner, could not be held liable for supporting her exercise of custodial rights.
The Court emphasized that parents cannot privately change custody by informal agreements; only the court can modify custody orders. Father’s remedy should have been to file a motion to modify custody or enforce visitation under Chapter 50—not to sue in tort.
2. Tortious Interference with Contract
Father also alleged that Chica interfered with a “contract” between him and Mother that allowed J.D. to live in Rhode Island. The Court dismissed this claim outright:
– Custody and child support cannot be altered by private contracts outside of court approval.
– Since the supposed “agreement” had no legal force, there was no valid contract to support a tort claim.
The Court made clear that children are not property subject to contract law. Custody is a matter of judicial determination guided by the best interests of the child.
3. Rule 11 Sanctions
The Court upheld the finding that Father’s claims were not well grounded in fact or law, but it vacated and remanded the sanctions award for lack of sufficient findings.
– The trial court had awarded over $9,000 in attorney’s fees without making detailed findings to justify the amount.
– The Court stressed that while sanctions were appropriate, findings must clearly show the basis for both the decision and the fee calculation.
Additionally, the Court flagged further Rule 34 sanctions for Father’s improper appellate filings. His reply brief improperly included “collateral matters” not in the record—such as references to unrelated cases and allegations about Mother—which grossly violated the appellate rules.
Implications of the Case
1. Family Law vs. Civil Law: This case illustrates that custody disputes must be resolved within the family law framework. Civil tort theories—like interference with parental rights or contract claims—cannot be used to circumvent valid custody orders.
2. Contracts Between Parents Are Limited: Parents may reach informal understandings, but only the court can modify custody or support orders. Private agreements that conflict with court orders are not enforceable.
3. Rule 11 Risks: Litigants—even those representing themselves—must ensure claims are grounded in fact and law. Courts may impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, for filings that are frivolous or harassing.
4. Appellate Practice Standards: Appeals are not opportunities to re-litigate unrelated grievances. Briefs that include improper arguments or extraneous material can themselves lead to sanctions.
Conclusion
In Bossian v. Chica, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims and clarified that custody and support orders cannot be sidestepped by creative tort theories. The ruling underscores the importance of using the proper family law channels for disputes, respecting court orders, and maintaining professionalism in litigation.
For parents in North Carolina, the lesson is clear: if you want to change custody or enforce visitation, the path is through the family court system—not through collateral civil lawsuits.
At Adkins Law, PLLC, we help families in Huntersville and throughout the Lake Norman area navigate complex custody, support, and litigation issues with clarity and experience. If you’re facing a difficult family law matter, contact us today to schedule a consultation.
