NC father sought $3,000 for kids’ foreign trip; court backs travel review rule

A father who demanded $3,000 or extra custody days before allowing his former wife to take their children abroad for a holiday was acting out of personal frustration rather than putting the children's best interests first, a court has found. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled on 4 November 2026 that a parenting coordinator had the legal authority to step in and create an independent review process for international travel requests. The decision ended a long-running disagreement between the divorced parents. In Fey v. Fey (Docket No. COA26-375), the court explained how North Carolina handles repeated disagreements between parents over children's overseas trips. Judge Valerie Zachary wrote the opinion for the three-judge appeals panel, which upheld the trial court's decision approving the coordinator's travel rules. The ruling confirms that parenting coordinators can create clear, step-by-step procedures to resolve disagreements between parents, as long as those procedures follow the existing custody orders.Origins of the parental disputeEdward Fey and Jennifer Fey were formerly married and have two minor children together. Their custody and visitation arrangements were officially set on 4 April 2022, when the Forsyth County District Court issued a consent custody order. The original order required both parents to put their children's physical and emotional well-being first. It also clearly stated that either parent needed the other's agreement before taking the children on an international trip. To help manage disagreements and make sure both parents followed the custody agreement, they jointly appointed a parenting coordinator on 29 April 2022. Under North Carolina law, courts or parents can appoint parenting coordinators to handle ongoing disagreements in difficult custody cases. Problems grew when Jennifer Fey asked for permission to take the children abroad for holidays. Edward Fey repeatedly refused to agree to the trips. According to legal commentary by attorney Guy J. Vitetta of Settlyd, a review of the court filings showed that the father's refusals were not based on safety concerns or a genuine fear that the children might be taken abroad and not returned. Instead, the parenting coordinator reported that Edward Fey wanted money or changes to the custody schedule in exchange for his approval. He demanded either four extra custody days or $3,000 for each trip. With the parents unable to reach an agreement, Jennifer Fey took the international travel dispute to their appointed parenting coordinator and asked for a formal decision.The parenting coordinator's travel protocolOn 22 April 2025, the parenting coordinator issued a formal decision to create a clear process for handling future international travel disagreements without repeatedly going to court.The coordinator introduced a set of rules and deadlines for all future trips abroad:The parent planning to travel must give the other parent written notice in advance, including the proposed travel dates and destination.The parent who is not travelling has five days to respond in writing with approval or specific reasons for objecting.If the other parent refuses permission or does not respond within five days, the dispute must be sent to the parenting coordinator for a binding administrative decision.The rules also set firm deadlines for sharing flight bookings, detailed travel plans, and arrangements for exchanging the children's passports and signed travel consent documents.Edward Fey immediately challenged the decision. He filed a motion with the district court, arguing that the coordinator had wrongly changed the original consent custody order. He also argued that this had been done without a formal legal motion or proof of a major change in circumstances. The Forsyth County District Court rejected his challenge and upheld the coordinator's decision. Edward Fey then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. He was represented by attorney John C. Vermitsky of Morrow, Vermitsky, Costello Law Group, PLLC.Court of Appeals upholds the review mechanismIn a published opinion issued on 4 November 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected Edward Fey's arguments and upheld the lower court's decision. Writing for the court, Judge Valerie Zachary found that the parenting coordinator had acted within the legal powers given to her. The appeals court pointed to Section 50-92 of the North Carolina General Statutes. This law allows parenting coordinators to help parents follow custody orders and settle disagreements that are not specifically covered by the original agreement. "The Parenting Coordinator acted within the scope of her authority, the trial court did not err in affirming the Parenting Coordinator Decision," Judge Zachary wrote in the court's opinion.The judges found that the travel rules did not change the basic custody or visitation rights set out in the April 2022 agreement. Instead, they created a practical process for making sure travel decisions followed the requirement to put the children's best interests first. The court also noted that Edward Fey's demand for $3,000 or extra custody days showed that his objections were based on personal financial and fairness concerns, rather than genuine worries about the children's safety. The parenting coordinator had found no reliable evidence that Jennifer Fey presented any safety risk or risk of taking the children abroad and failing to return.Broader impact on North Carolina custody lawThe appeals court's decision in Fey v. Fey provides further guidance on what parenting coordinators can and cannot do in North Carolina family law cases. Under Sections 50-91 and 50-92 of the state's General Statutes, parenting coordinators cannot change the main custody arrangements, increase or reduce child support payments, or permanently move children to another location without court approval. However, the appeals court made clear that creating procedures to resolve repeated disagreements over international travel is within a coordinator's legal powers. Reporting by legal news service LAWS noted that the ruling sets an important precedent for protecting children's travel opportunities when one parent tries to use the other parent's consent as a way to gain money or personal benefits. By upholding the coordinator's travel process, the court made clear that parents cannot refuse permission for international trips without a valid reason when there are no genuine safety or travel concerns. The decision also shows that North Carolina appeals courts will support binding administrative decisions that put children's emotional and social well-being ahead of ongoing disputes between parents.