North Carolina’s Court of Appeals just dropped a decision that every separated or divorced parent — and especially anyone co-parenting with a non-parent caregiver — should read. The case of Bullins v. Riddle is a masterclass on three big custody law lessons: who has standing to intervene, what really counts as a “change in circumstances,” and how something as ordinary as daycare can land a parent in criminal contempt.
💥 The Backstory
Jennifer Bullins was the biological mother of a young boy, K.B. The father had long since given up his parental rights. For a while, Jennifer and her partner, Hayley Riddle, raised K.B. together. Hayley claimed she’d been there since day one — helping raise, support, and care for the child as a co-parent.
When the relationship ended, Jennifer moved out with K.B. and assumed she would continue raising him as before. Hayley disagreed. She filed to intervene in Jennifer’s custody case, claiming she had a “parent-like” relationship with the child.
A Randolph County judge sided with Hayley — giving her joint custody in 2020 and later primary custody in 2022, leaving Jennifer with limited visitation.
Then things escalated.
In 2023, Hayley went back to court, accusing Jennifer of violating the order — including enrolling K.B. in a daycare without her knowledge or consent. The trial court not only cut Jennifer’s visitation further but also found her guilty of criminal contempt, giving her a suspended 30-day jail sentence and 12 months of probation.
Jennifer appealed.
⚖️ The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The appellate court issued a mixed ruling — affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded — but its reasoning carries major implications for parents, caregivers, and attorneys across North Carolina.
1️⃣ Non-Parents Can Have Standing — But the Bar Is High
The trial court technically cited the wrong statute. It used the grandparent visitation statute (§ 50-13.5(j)), even though Hayley wasn’t related to the child. Normally, that would be a fatal error.
But the Court of Appeals said Hayley still had standing under § 50-13.1(a) — a broader statute that lets “any parent, relative, or other person” seek custody if they’ve formed a meaningful parental relationship and the biological parent acted inconsistently with their parental rights.
Here, the court noted that Jennifer had voluntarily “ceded paramount decision-making authority” to Hayley while they lived together — essentially treating her as a co-parent. That, the court said, was enough to give Hayley standing.
🧠 Takeaway: Non-parents can step into custody disputes — but only when the parent’s conduct shows they shared or delegated parental authority long-term.
2️⃣ Communication Problems ≠ Change in Circumstances
Next, the court turned to the 2024 custody modification. The trial court found a “breakdown in communication” between the two adults, saying it had made K.B. “emotional and clingy.”
But the Court of Appeals wasn’t convinced. Under Shipman v. Shipman, a court must show:
- A substantial change in circumstances,
- A direct effect on the child’s welfare, and
- That modification serves the child’s best interests.
While poor communication may be frustrating, the appellate judges said it’s not automatically harmful to a child — and the trial court failed to explain how or why it caused emotional harm. Without that connection (called the “Shipman nexus”), the modification couldn’t stand.
🧠 Takeaway: You can’t modify custody just because the parents argue — you need clear findings tying the conflict to the child’s well-being.
3️⃣ Daycare as Criminal Contempt
Finally, the court upheld the most eyebrow-raising part: the criminal contempt conviction.
Because Hayley held primary legal custody, she had the right to make “major, long-term decisions” — including childcare and education. When Jennifer enrolled K.B. in a church-based daycare where she worked (without telling Hayley first), that was deemed a willful violation of the custody order and the parenting guidelines.
Even though Jennifer argued she was just bringing her child to work with her, the court found otherwise. She’d filled out enrollment paperwork, and K.B. participated like the other kids. That was enough to prove a willful breach “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
🧠 Takeaway: If your ex has legal custody, enrolling your child in school, daycare, or therapy without consent can trigger criminal contempt — even if your intentions are good.
🧩 The Bigger Picture
The Bullins case hits several important reminders for families and lawyers navigating custody in North Carolina:
- Don’t play fast and loose with legal custody. Major decisions (school, daycare, doctors, therapy) must be discussed or consented to — even when you think it’s minor.
- Put clear guidelines in your order. Vague “co-parenting rules” lead to conflict. Spell out what counts as a major decision, what notice is required, and what happens if parents disagree.
- If you’re a non-parent caregiver: Establish your role early and get written acknowledgments or joint legal documents if you’re functioning as a parent.
- If you’re a biological parent: Don’t assume a breakup automatically restores your full rights if you previously shared decision-making — courts can view that as “acting inconsistently” with your parental status.
🧾 Final Word
In Bullins v. Riddle, the appellate court affirmed the contempt, vacated the custody modification, and remanded for new findings. But the message was clear:
Parenting orders must be clear. Custody changes must be justified. And even daycare decisions can carry real legal consequences.
Adkins Law: A Law Firm Located in Huntersville
If you’re facing a custody dispute — especially one involving a non-parent, shared caregiving, or unclear “parenting guidelines” — it’s critical to protect your rights and get clarity before acting.
At Adkins Law, we help parents and caregivers navigate complex custody issues with experience and precision — from standing and modification motions to contempt defenses and appeals.
📞 Contact us today at huntersvillelawyer.com to discuss your situation confidentially.
Leave a Reply