{
  "id": 4180950,
  "name": "L'TANYA MOORE, Plaintiff v. OLUSOGA MILES ONAFOWORA, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Onafowora",
  "decision_date": "2010-12-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA10-376",
  "first_page": "674",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. App. 674"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "630 S.E.2d 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635918
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "30",
          "parenthetical": "citing Burnett v. Wheeler, 128 N.C. App. 174, 177, 493 S.E.2d 804, 806 (1997) (holding that, when determining a defendant's total gross income, considering the defendant's income from all available sources does not amount to imputing income)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/630/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "657 S.E.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640577
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731",
          "parenthetical": "citing Beall v. Beall, 290 N.C. 669, 674, 228 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1976)"
        },
        {
          "page": "731"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/657/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "635 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12636803
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496",
          "parenthetical": "citing Taylor v. Taylor, 128 N.C. App. 180, 182, 493 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1997)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/635/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9248653
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/152/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "478 S.E.2d 655",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "658"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11890554
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "729"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 S.E.2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155848,
        1155753,
        1155939,
        1155580
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0100-04",
        "/nc/351/0100-01",
        "/nc/351/0100-02",
        "/nc/351/0100-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "516 S.E.2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "874"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11143016
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "88-89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 S.E.2d 804",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "805"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.C. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9441152
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "342"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/141/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "517 S.E.2d 921",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "925"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11145414
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "464"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "610 S.E.2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "267",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Browning, 136 N.C. App. at 423, 524 S.E.2d at 97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8470105
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Browning, 136 N.C. App. at 423, 524 S.E.2d at 97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/169/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "524 S.E.2d 95",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "97"
        },
        {
          "page": "97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11240022
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "423"
        },
        {
          "page": "423"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758",
          "parenthetical": "citing Browning v. Helff, 136 N.C. App. 420, 423, 524 S.E.2d 95, 97 (2000)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.C. App. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9250877
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527",
          "parenthetical": "citing Browning v. Helff, 136 N.C. App. 420, 423, 524 S.E.2d 95, 97 (2000)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/155/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 804",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "806",
          "parenthetical": "holding that, when determining a defendant's total gross income, considering the defendant's income from all available sources does not amount to imputing income"
        },
        {
          "page": "806"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11653040
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "177",
          "parenthetical": "holding that, when determining a defendant's total gross income, considering the defendant's income from all available sources does not amount to imputing income"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/128/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N.C. App. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8301949
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "650",
          "parenthetical": "citing Burnett v. Wheeler, 128 N.C. App. 174, 177, 493 S.E.2d 804, 806 (1997) (holding that, when determining a defendant's total gross income, considering the defendant's income from all available sources does not amount to imputing income)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/177/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "289"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 705",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11799982
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "706"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/127/0705-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 S.E.2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "410"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564393
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "674"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0669-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4156933
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "77",
          "parenthetical": "citing Beall v. Beall, 290 N.C. 669, 674, 228 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1976)"
        },
        {
          "page": "77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/189/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "556 S.E.2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9380241
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "483"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/147/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "677 S.E.2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "197",
          "parenthetical": "citing Hodges v. Hodges, 147 N.C. App. 478, 483, 556 S.E.2d 7, 10 (2001)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. App. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4168135
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335",
          "parenthetical": "citing Hodges v. Hodges, 147 N.C. App. 478, 483, 556 S.E.2d 7, 10 (2001)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/197/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 863",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719540
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "541 S.E.2d 508",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "509",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985)"
        },
        {
          "page": "510",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.C. App. 729",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9443414
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985)"
        },
        {
          "page": "732",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/141/0729-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 834",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "837"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9250407
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "441"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/152/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "579 S.E.2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "122",
          "parenthetical": "citing Leary v. Leary, 152 N.C. App. 438, 441, 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9186228
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287",
          "parenthetical": "citing Leary v. Leary, 152 N.C. App. 438, 441, 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/157/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 819",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "820"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11653140
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "182"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/128/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N.C. App. 838",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8240411
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "839",
          "parenthetical": "citing Taylor v. Taylor, 128 N.C. App. 180, 182, 493 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1997)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/179/0838-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 947,
    "char_count": 19913,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.760839030369648e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4091854389966365
    },
    "sha256": "b725a85f4090ac1a397a8d3b25c8998824ac5e4079b942a5dc0456ff2251ff91",
    "simhash": "1:c729f66af6d21c5e",
    "word_count": 3297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:36.775795+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "L\u2019TANYA MOORE, Plaintiff v. OLUSOGA MILES ONAFOWORA, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nBecause defendant submitted incomplete financial records for 2008 and 2009 and the most complete records for 2007, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in using the 2007 records to aid in determining defendant\u2019s income in 2009. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s determination of defendant\u2019s child support obligation.\nProcedural History\nOn 26 April 2007, plaintiff-mother L\u2019Tanya Moore (Moore) filed a complaint for child custody and child support for minor child M. Onafowora, born 31 December 2000, as well as counsel fees. On 27 June 2007, after finding that Moore and defendant Olusoga Miles Onafowora (Onafowora) were the parents of the minor child, District Court Judge Norman T. Owens entered an order for temporary custody and temporary child support. The trial court noted Onafowora\u2019s failure to appear and produce documentation and found that\ninstead of coming to court, [Onafowora] on the morning of [the hearing] picked up the minor child at day care after [Moore] had dropped the child off and apparently took the minor child to Durham, North Carolina where he has arbitrarily decided and informed [Moore] that the child will spend the next two (2) weeks.\nIn support of its temporary order, the trial court found that the minor child has resided almost exclusively with Moore, and that Moore earned a gross monthly income of $1,512.29 and incurred a monthly health insurance premium attributable to the minor child of $228.48. Further, Onafowora did not provide the court with any documentation of his income, as set out in his subpoena, did not respond to the Request for Production of Documentation, and did not comply with the local rules concerning the filing of an Affidavit of Financial Standing. The court concluded that it was in the best interest of the minor child that Moore be awarded the minor child\u2019s care, custody, and control.\nOn 12 July 2007, Onafowora made a motion to set aside the order and stay its enforcement and, on 7 August 2007, made a motion to dismiss the custody action and change the venue of the child support action. In an order filed 26 October 2007, the trial court denied Onafowora\u2019s motions. On 23 January 2008, Onaforowa filed a motion to establish visitation. On 8 December 2008, the trial court entered a memorandum of judgment/order in which Onaforowa was granted visitation every other weekend and every Wednesday. In the interim, on 30 July 2008, Onafowora submitted an affidavit of income information to the trial court indicating that his average monthly gross income in 2008 was $3,587.82.\nOn 2 February 2009, the matter came before District Court Judge Donnie Hoover for a hearing on child custody, visitation, child support, and child support arrearage. On 13 July 2009, the trial court entered an order in which it found that, in 2007, Moore earned a gross income of $3,719.58 per month; in 2008, $3,927.67 per month; and at the time of the hearing, Moore earned a gross income of $5,260.12 per month. On behalf of the minor child, Moore incurred insurance premiums of $186.46 per month and a work related child care cost of $262.50. Taking into account bank deposits from sources other than Onafowora\u2019s employer, the court found that Onafowora\u2019s gross income per month was $11,667.60 in 2007; $11,791.10 in 2008; and at the time of the hearing, $11,967.61 per month. Based on these new figures, the trial court recalculated Onafowora\u2019s child support obligation and determined that, from May 2007 to May 2009, he was in arrears $14,353.80. Onafowora was ordered to make child support payments in the amount of $1,293.79 and payments on his arrearage in the amount of $106.21 for a total monthly payment amount of $1,400.00.\nRegarding custody and visitation, the trial court found that \u201c[Moore] has been and remains the primary parent of the minor child, being the parent who has consistently seen to the emotional, physical, and financial needs of the minor child.\u201d Accordingly, the trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the minor child that her care, custody, and control be vested with Moore and that the minor child have visitation with Onafowora.\nOn 26 August 2009, the trial court entered an order requiring Onafowora to pay Moore\u2019s counsel fees in the amount of $20,000.00. Onafowora appeals.\nOn appeal, Onafowora raises two issues: Did the trial court err in (I) setting his child support obligation and (II) awarding Moore sole custody of the minor child. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court\u2019s decision.\nI\nOnafowora first argues that the trial court erred in setting his child support obligation by erroneously imputing current income to him based on bank statements from previous years. We disagree. \u201cWhen determining a child support award, a trial judge has a high level of discretion, not only in setting the amount of the award, but also in establishing an appropriate remedy.\u201d State ex rel. Williams v. Williams, 179 N.C. App. 838, 839, 635 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2006) (citing Taylor v. Taylor, 128 N.C. App. 180, 182, 493 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1997)). \u201cChild support orders entered by a trial court are accorded substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion.\u201d Mason v. Erwin, 157 N.C. App. 284, 287, 579 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2003) (citing Leary v. Leary, 152 N.C. App. 438, 441, 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002)).\n[A]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, a judge\u2019s determination of what is a proper amount of child support will not be disturbed on appeal. ... A judge is subject to reversal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing by the litigant that the challenged actions are manifestly unsupported by reason.\nBowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C. App. 729, 731, 541 S.E.2d 508, 509 (2001) (quoting Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985)) (internal quotations omitted).\nUnder North Carolina General Statutes, section 50-13.4,\n(c) Payments ordered for the support of a minor child'shall be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education, and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (2009). \u201cWhen determining a parent\u2019s child support obligation ... a court must determine each parent\u2019s gross income. A parent\u2019s child support obligation should be based on the parent\u2019s \u2018actual income at the time the order is made.\u2019 \u201d Head v. Mosier, 197 N.C. App. 328, 335, 677 S.E.2d 191, 197 (2009) (citing Hodges v. Hodges, 147 N.C. App. 478, 483, 556 S.E.2d 7, 10 (2001)).\nCapacity to earn, however, may be the basis of an award if it is based upon a proper finding that the husband is deliberately depressing his income or indulging himself in excessive spending because of a disregard of his marital obligation to provide reasonable support for his wife and children.\nHartsell v. Hartsell, 189 N.C. App. 65, 77, 657 S.E.2d 724, 731 (2008) (citing Beall v. Beall, 290 N.C. 669, 674, 228 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1976)). \u201cOur Supreme Court has held that \u2018earning capacity\u2019 to determine child support can only be used where there are findings, based on competent evidence, to support a conclusion that the supporting spouse or parent is deliberately suppressing his or her income to avoid family responsibilities.\u201d Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C. App. 729, 732, 541 S.E.2d 508, 510 (2001) (citations omitted). \u201cThus, \u2018a showing of bad faith income depression by the parent is a mandatory prerequisite for imputing income to that parent.\u2019\u201d Hartsell, 189 N.C. App. at 77, 657 S.E.2d at 731 (quoting Sharpe v. Nobles, 127 N.C. App. 705, 706, 493 S.E.2d 288, 289 (1997)). Where there is no finding of bad faith, the law of imputation is inapplicable. See Diehl v. Diehl, 177 N.C. App. 642, 650, 630 S.E.2d 25, 30 (2006) (citing Burnett v. Wheeler, 128 N.C. App. 174, 177, 493 S.E.2d 804, 806 (1997) (holding that, when determining a defendant\u2019s total gross income, considering the defendant\u2019s income from all available sources does not amount to imputing income)).\nIn Burnett, Mr. Wheeler contended that the trial court erred by imputing to him income of $77,000.00 despite evidence that his actual income was $29,000.00 per year. 128 N.C. App. at 176-77, 493 S.E.2d at 806. This Court acknowledged that \u201ca person\u2019s capacity to earn income may be the basis of an award only if there is a finding that the party deliberately depressed his income or otherwise acted in deliberate disregard of the obligation to provide reasonable support for the child.\u201d Id. at 177, 493 S.E.2d at 806. However, this Court reasoned that Mr. Wheeler mischaracterized the trial court\u2019s order: the trial court did not impute income. Rather, the court considered all of Mr. Wheeler\u2019s available income sources, such as: his retirement accounts, which totaled $722,384.00; his stock investments valued at $60,000.00; and land valued at $74,000.00. Id. We held that, in using all of Mr. Wheeler\u2019s available sources of income to arrive at his annual gross income, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Id.\nHere, in his 2008 response to Moore\u2019s discovery questions, Onafowora stated that the only car he owned was a 1996 Volvo but the car was sold in 2006. However, at the hearing for child custody and support, Onafowora testified that he owned a 2008 Mercedes S550 purchased in the fourth quarter of 2007. In addition, the court received evidence of a 21 August 2007 general warranty deed and a deed of trust with promissory note showing Onaforowa purchased a lot in Reflections Point, Belmont, North Carolina in the amount of $806,125.00. Onafowora had failed to include this property transaction in the response to the discovery request concerning Onafowora\u2019s assets. As to his income, Onafowora testified that he ran an event-planning business in 2007, and evidence was produced that he deposited $75,371.76 from that business into his personal checking accounts during that year.\nThe trial court found that Onafowora was employed by Trinity Partners and in 2007 had a gross income from that employer of $4,116.66 per month; in 2008, $4,240.16; and, at the time of the hearing, $4,416.67 per month. In addition, the trial court found that Onaforowa \u201chad a side business producing parties at which patrons pay an entrance fee and there is entertainment.\u201d In unchallenged finding of fact 12 and in finding of fact 13 the trial court stated the following:\n12. ... The most complete records provided by defendant were those for 2007. For eight months in 2007 [Onafowora] deposited into his Wachovia account number ending in ... 6767 $38,631.51 in addition to his net income from Trinity Partners and not including bank transfers, overdraft charges, or refunds. He deposited into his Wachovia account number ending in... 0975 for that eight month period $21,776.00. This is a total of $60,407.51 in gross income to the defendant for the first eight months of 2007 over and above his gross monthly income from his employment with Trinity Partners, an average of $7,550.94 per month.\n13. The court finds that the defendant has gross monthly income in addition to that he receives from his employment with Trinity Partners in the amount of $7,550.94. His total gross monthly income from all sources for 2007 averaged $11,667.60. His total gross monthly income for 2008 averaged $11,791.10. His total gross monthly income for 2009 averaged $11,967.61. The court finds the defendant\u2019s current gross monthly income to be $11,967.61.\nWhile the trial court did not make a finding of deliberate suppression of income, it did properly consider Onaforowa\u2019s income from all available sources. Given Onafowora\u2019s incomplete financial records in 2008 and 2009, we cannot say, under the circumstances of this case, that the trial court abused its discretion in using Onafowora\u2019s average monthly income reflected in the most complete records from 2007, to determine his 2009 income for purposes of setting .his child support obligation. See Burnett, 128 N.C. App. 174, 493 S.E.2d 804. Accordingly, Onafowora\u2019s argument is overruled.\nII\nNext, Onafowora argues that the trial court erred and abused it discretion in awarding sole custody of the minor child to Moore. We disagree.\n\u201cIn child custody cases, the trial court is vested with broad discretion.\u201d Shipman v. Shipman, 155 N.C. App. 523, 527, 573 S.E.2d 755, 758 (2002) (citing Browning v. Helff, 136 N.C. App. 420, 423, 524 S.E.2d 95, 97 (2000)). \u201cThe decision of the trial court as to child custody \u2018should not be upset on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.\u2019\u201d Evans v. Evans, 169 N.C. App. 358, 610 S.E.2d 264, 267 (2005) (quoting Browning, 136 N.C. App. at 423, 524 S.E.2d at 97).\nIn a child custody case, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are binding on this Court if they are supported by competent evidence. See Sain v. Sain, 134 N.C. App. 460, 464, 517 S.E.2d 921, 925 (1999). \u201cHowever, the findings of fact and conclusions of law must be sufficient for this Court to determine whether the judgment is adequately supported by competent evidence.\u201d Cantrell v. Wishon, 141 N.C. App. 340, 342, 540 S.E.2d 804, 805 (2000); see Buckingham v. Buckingham, 134 N.C. App. 82, 88-89, 516 S.E.2d 869, 874, review denied, 351 N.C. 100, 540 S.E.2d 353 (1999). \u201cGenerally, on appeal from a case heard without a jury, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive if there is evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain a finding to the contrary.\u201d Raynor v. Odom, 124 N.C. App. 724, 729, 478 S.E.2d 655, 658 (1996).\nDavis v. McMillian, 152 N.C. App. 53, 58, 567 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2002).\nOnafowora challenges the following findings of fact:\n23. ... Although [Onafowora] did take care of [the minor child] some while [Moore] was in school, [Moore] was the primary parent of the minor child following the child\u2019s birth.\n47. [The minor child] suffers from asthma. [Onafowora] is not adequately versed in the minor child\u2019s medications or medical problems. The court finds that he is not adequately prepared to deal with an asthma attack if the minor child has one.\n49. At one point the minor child needed surgery. [Moore] informed [Onafowora] that the minor child was going to have the surgery. [Onafowora] demanded that they get a second opinion. However, although he had an opportunity to do so and although he continued to complain about the child not having a second opinion, he never actually sought a second opinion.\nAt the custody hearing, Moore testified that, after the minor child was bom, she lived with Moore for approximately a year and a half: she bathed the child, fed her, and met her physical and emotional needs. Onafowora visited the child two-to-three times a week. Each visit lasted 30 to 45 minutes, and Onafowora never took the child away from Moore\u2019s residence. Further, Moore also testified that she did not tell Onafowora to stay away from the residence or not to visit. After the birth of the minor child, Onafowora purchased diapers and infant formula but rejected any request to provide more, such as help with daycare expenses. Moore\u2019s daycare provider, Mary Hemphill, testified that she cared for the minor child between three months and twenty-three months of age and, over the course of those months, Onafowora came to the daycare less the five times.\nMoore also testified to the minor child\u2019s medical needs: the minor child has \u201cnasal problems.\u201d When asked what prescriptions the child was on, Moore listed Tamiflu, Orafil, Advair, and Retinol \u201cfor her allergies.\u201d Onafowora could not name those medications when asked, and Moore testified that, when she discussed the medications with Onafowora, she did not \u201cfeel like he paid attention....\u201d As to the contention that Onaforowa demanded a second opinion regarding the minor child\u2019s surgery, Moore testified as follows:\nQ. Ms. Kelling asked [Onafowora] yesterday about a second opinion. Did Mr. Onafowora ask you to get a second opinion prior to your daughter\u2019s surgery?\nA. No, Mr. Onafowora said, \u201cI need to research about this surgery.\u201d So, I let him go and do this research. I checked with him in a few days, asked him if he\u2019d done his research, he said, No. He said he still had questions for the doctor. I provided him the doctor\u2019s name as well as the doctor\u2019s phone number. I followed up with him on several occasions asking had he spoke to the doctor, and each time it was, no; another time it was, \u201cI left a message. He hasn\u2019t called me back.\u201d Two days later I said, \u201cYou still haven\u2019t heard from the doctor?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d I said, \u201cI find that strange because at least the doctor\u2019s nurse would have called you back by now.\u201d So I don\u2019t believe he was trying to get his questions answered.\nOnafowora also contested the following finding:\n36. [Onafowora\u2019s] increased participation with the minor child, while good, seems to have arisen out of his desire to have his way over the income tax return [sic] and child support. . . . \u25a0 [Moore] has been and remains the primary parent of the minor child, being the parent who has consistently seen to the emotional, physical, and financial needs of the minor child.\nAt the hearing, Moore presented a verbatim transcript of recorded conversations between herself and Onafowora regarding a $1,500.00 tax refund, in which Onafowora indicates Moore should be thankful to him for helping her receive the refund. In addition, Moore related a conversation in which Onafowora raised the question \u201c[w]hy do I have to give you money to take care of our \u2014 my daughter.\u201d These actions indicate a reluctance by Onafowora to accept responsibility for the needs of the child, including financial responsibility. After a review of the record, we hold there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact. Moreover, we hold the trial court\u2019s findings support the following'Conclusions:\n3. [Moore] is a fit, suitable and proper person to have the care, custody, and control of the minor child who is the subject of this action ....\n4. [Onafowora] is a fit, suitable and proper person to have reasonable visitation with the minor child ....\n5. It is in the best interest of the minor child that her care, custody, and control be vested with [Moore].\nAs the trial court\u2019s decision is fully supported by the record, there is no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Onafowora\u2019s argument is overruled.\nAffirmed.\nJudges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur.\n. The trial court found that Moore\u2019s Affidavit of Financial Standing, relied upon in the order for Temporary Child Custody and Temporary Child Support, incorrectly reflected Moore\u2019s monthly gross income due to a mistake by her attorney.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James A. Warren for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., by Kary C. Watson and Lauren M. Vaughn, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L\u2019TANYA MOORE, Plaintiff v. OLUSOGA MILES ONAFOWORA, Defendant\nNo. COA10-376\n(Filed 21 December 2010)\n1. Child Custody and Support\u2014 child support obligation \u2014 use of records from prior year \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in using defendant\u2019s average monthly income reflected in the most complete records from 2007 to determine his 2009 income for purposes of setting his child support obligation where defendant submitted incomplete financial records from 2008 and 2009.\n2. Child Custody and Support\u2014 sole custody to plaintiff \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a child custody matter by awarding sole custody of the child to plaintiff where the trial court\u2019s decision was fully supported by the record.\nAppeal by defendant from orders entered 13 July 2009 and 26 August 2009 by Judge Donnie Hoover in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 2010.\nJames A. Warren for plaintiff-appellee.\nHorack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., by Kary C. Watson and Lauren M. Vaughn, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0674-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 706
}