Can a North Carolina Judge Approve an International Relocation Without Determining Safety?

International relocations can be overwhelmingly difficult to process, and if you are the parent who stays behind, one fear may outweigh everything else: can a judge let a child move to another country without explaining why the decision is safe?

In Cohen v. Hefetz, a February 2026 North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, this concern came to the forefront. The case’s result shows that it may be possible for an order permitting an international relocation to be undone if the trial court never resolves the disputes the parents raised.

Note: Cohen v. Hefetz (No. COA25-39, 2026 WL 289377) is an unpublished opinion, so it does not serve as binding legal precedent in North Carolina. However, the case and results offer helpful insight into how NC courts may approach similar issues.

What Happened in Cohen v. Hefetz?

In this case, the parents involved were never married. The father was reportedly absent from most of the child’s early years, visiting infrequently until the parents settled into a schedule of alternating weekends and, later, overnight visits.

Both parents had family living in Israel, and the child had visited the country with their mother several times. During a visit in 2023, the mother and child were caught up in the outbreak of war, and the mother stayed in the country two weeks longer than planned due to travel restrictions.

Months later, the mother asked the court to allow her and the child to relocate to Israel permanently, citing the family’s support structure in the country.

Both parents testified at the hearing, as well as relatives who joined the proceedings remotely from Israel. After the hearing, the trial court entered a permanent custody order in mid-2024 that granted the parents joint legal custody, the mother primary physical custody, and permission to relocate with the child.

The father appealed the decision.

What Did the Father Argue in His Appeal?

The father didn’t dispute the trial court’s finding that both parents were fit. Instead, he argued that the order couldn’t support giving primary custody to the relocating parent, as the trial court’s own findings never resolved the father’s main concerns:

• Was it safe to send a child to a country currently at war?
• Was the mother’s neighborhood in Israel safe enough for the child?
• Would his relationship with the child suffer once in-person visits became more difficult due to travel costs, distance, and potential restrictions due to the war?

The trial court did write over 100 findings of fact, but the Court of Appeals held that most of the findings on the safety questions were recitations of testimony rather than resolutions – and that (among other findings) led to the Court of Appeals vacating the custody order.

Why are “Findings” not the Same as “Resolving” a Dispute?

This is the heart of this particular case, and it has implications for a variety of other family law cases. North Carolina law requires more than findings that simply describe what each side said in testimony.

When parents disagree on an issue that is deemed central to the child’s welfare, the trial court must resolve that dispute and explain how the resolution supports the ultimate custody decisions.

In Cohen v. Hefetz, the Court of Appeals found that the order noted the war was ongoing and that family members on both sides gave conflicting accounts of how safe the situation truly was. However, there was no determination of how much risk the war actually posed to the child or a weighing of that risk against the reasons to grant permission for the relocation.

The same gap showed up in the question of the father’s future relationship with the child post-move. The trial court found that the father could afford to travel and see the child but never addressed how the war could impact travel ability and, thus, the father’s ability to physically see the child.

The Court of Appeals quoted its own precedent in its determination: “the quality, not the quantity, of findings is determinative.”

What Cohen v. Hefetz Means for North Carolina Families

Since the Court of Appeals determined that the findings did not resolve the disputes that the evidence raised, the custody order was vacated and sent back to the trial court for new findings – and a new order – that would grapple with the safety and relationship questions the parents put at issue.

The outcome is unique to this case and the circumstances, but there are some insights that can be helpful for other families involved in custody disputes:

• A judge has no “magic words” to determine the outcome, but the order must resolve the disputes that the parents raised, not just describe them.
• In a relocation case, safety concerns must have answers, not simply acknowledgment. Findings that recite both sides’ testimony are not the same as a finding that determines which side is right.Check
• The relationship between the child and the parent left behind matters. Courts are expected to weigh the reality of the relationship and whether a realistic visitation schedule can preserve the relationship (rather than simply saying that travel is “technically possible”).
• More findings aren’t the same as better findings. Cohen v. Hefetz shows that even an order with 100-plus findings can be vacated if the findings never connect fact to a best-interest conclusion. (See more on why custody orders can be vacated on appeal due to insufficient findings.)

Are You Facing a Relocation Case in North Carolina?

Relocation cases involving child custody are a difficult process and should be handled with the utmost care. Whether you’re a parent asking to relocate or one who may be potentially left behind, how the custody order is written can decide whether or not the order survives an appeal.

At Woodruff Family Law Group, our team of attorneys helps North Carolina families build well-supported custody cases based on the facts – and holds the other side, and the court, to the standard the law requires.

Contact our Greensboro family law team today to schedule a consultation.