Green v. Carter: Can a Non-Parent Be Ordered to Pay Child Support in North Carolina?

In Green v. Carter, 293 N.C. App. 51, 900 S.E.2d 108 (2024), the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a groundbreaking question: Can someone who is not a biological or adoptive parent — but who has acted as a parent — be required to pay child support?

The case arose from a custody and support dispute between two women who had been in a romantic relationship, planned for a child together through IVF, and later separated. The trial court had ordered the non-biological partner to pay child support, reasoning that the child support statute could be applied in a “gender neutral” way. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reversing the support order.

This case sheds light on the intersection of child custody, child support, statutory interpretation, and evolving family structures in North Carolina.

The Facts 
– The parties, two women, jointly planned to have a child through IVF. One woman gave birth in Michigan, and the other partner was not listed on the birth certificate under Michigan law.
– After moving to North Carolina, they shared custody of the child through a permanent custody order, which granted joint legal and physical custody.
– The biological mother later sought child support.
– The trial court concluded the non-biological partner was a “parent” for purposes of the child support statute and ordered her to pay monthly support plus health insurance costs.

The Legal Issue 
At the heart of the appeal was North Carolina General Statute § 50-13.4(b), which establishes child support obligations.

– Primary liability rests with the “mother” and “father” of the child.
– Secondary liability may be imposed on those standing in loco parentis (acting as a parent) — but only if they have voluntarily assumed the obligation in writing.

The trial court had treated “mother” and “father” as gender-neutral, effectively concluding that two women could both be primary parents under the statute.

The Court of Appeals’ Analysis 
1. Plain Language of the Statute
The Court emphasized that the statute uses the words “mother” and “father” as nouns referring to biological or adoptive parents. A district court does not have authority to redefine parental status outside of adoption laws.

2. No Gender-Neutral Reading Allowed 
Although the trial court sought a “gender neutral” interpretation, the Court of Appeals held this was impermissible. The legislature has authorized gender-neutral construction for terms like “husband and wife” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 12-3(16), but not for “mother” and “father.” Therefore, courts cannot rewrite § 50-13.4 to include non-parents.

3. In Loco Parentis and Secondary Liability 
While the partner clearly stood in loco parentis, she could not be held secondarily liable for child support without a written agreement voluntarily assuming that obligation. Cases like Duffey v. Duffey and Moyer v. Moyer confirm that only a written assumption of support creates liability for non-parents.

4. Public Policy Concerns 
The Court acknowledged the trial court’s fairness concerns — that support should accompany custody — but stressed that only the legislature can amend the statute to reflect modern family realities. Judges cannot create new obligations where none exist in law.

The Holding 
The Court of Appeals reversed the child support order. The non-biological partner could exercise custody rights under § 50-13.2 but could not be required to pay child support absent adoption or a written agreement under § 50-13.4(b).

The Dissent 
Judge Hampson dissented, arguing that under Price v. Howard (1997), custody rights should carry support obligations. He criticized the majority for treating same-sex partners differently than heterosexual couples, suggesting the duty of support should extend equally.

What This Case Means 
1. Biological and adoptive parents remain the only individuals with primary child support liability under North Carolina law.
2. Non-parents acting in loco parentis can only be liable if they assume support obligations in writing.
3. The case highlights a gap in North Carolina law: children of non-traditional families may lack financial protections unless adoption occurs or a written support agreement is made.
4. It underscores the role of the General Assembly, not the courts, in updating statutes to reflect changing family structures.

Practical Implications 
– For same-sex couples: Adoption remains critical for ensuring both partners have equal parental rights and responsibilities.
– For stepparents or partners: Acting as a parent and even having custody does not create financial liability unless support is assumed in writing.
– For practitioners: This case clarifies limits on creative arguments for “gender-neutral” interpretations of parentage statutes.

Conclusion 
Green v. Carter underscores the strict statutory framework for child support in North Carolina. While courts may recognize custody rights for non-parents, child support obligations remain tied to biological or adoptive status — unless voluntarily assumed in writing.

This decision is a reminder that family law evolves slowly, and significant policy changes will require legislative action, not judicial innovation.

At Adkins Law, PLLC, based in Huntersville, we represent clients in custody, child support, and family law matters. Whether you are protecting your parental rights or navigating complex custody and support issues, we are here to provide skilled guidance.