What Keith v. Keith Teaches Us About Child Custody Decisions

Family law cases are not decided in theory. They are decided based on real people, real finances, and real evidence. The North Carolina Court of Appeals case Keith v. Keith, 911 S.E.2d 371 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024) is a strong example of how courts evaluate child support when one parent controls their income and how important detailed court findings truly are.

This case involved a divorced mother and father, two minor children, and a long-running dispute over child support, income, and unpaid expenses. The appellate court’s decision provides important lessons for parents, especially those who are self-employed or whose income is not straightforward.

The Parents and What the Case Was About

The parties in this case were Amy Stallings Keith (the mother) and Christopher Darrell Keith (the father). They married in 2004, separated in 2017, and divorced in 2018. They have two children, born in 2009 and 2010.

After the separation, the children primarily lived with the mother, and she was responsible for most of their daily expenses. In August 2017, the mother filed a court action asking for child custody and child support from the father. At the heart of the dispute was how much child support the father should pay—and whether his reported income was truthful.

Father’s Claims About His Income

The father worked in construction. During the marriage, he earned a six-figure income as a subcontractor. After the separation, however, he claimed that his income had dropped significantly.

At trial, the father reported earning only $2,000 per month, stating that this was his actual salary from a construction company he co-owned with his brother. Based on that figure, he argued that his child support obligation should be relatively low.

The mother disagreed. She presented evidence showing that the father had control over how and when he paid himself, invested in multiple construction projects, had a history of earning far more than he claimed, and appeared to have voluntarily reduced his income.

What the Trial Court Decided

After hearing evidence over several days between 2022 and 2023, the trial court made several major rulings.

Income Imputation: The court found that the father was acting in bad faith by keeping his reported income artificially low. Because he controlled his earnings and had the ability to earn more, the court did not accept his $2,000-per-month figure.

Instead, the judge imputed income to the father, meaning the court based child support on what he should be earning rather than what he claimed to earn.

Child Support Award: The trial court ordered the father to pay $692.80 per month in ongoing child support beginning June 1, 2023.

Past Support (Back Pay): The court also found that the father had not paid child support for several years. As a result, it ordered him to reimburse the mother approximately $32,561.60 for unpaid child support covering July 2019 through May 2023.

Medical and Extraordinary Expenses: In addition to monthly support, the court ordered the father to reimburse the mother for $5,761.95 in uninsured medical and dental expenses and about $4,750 for half of the children’s summer camp costs, which the court classified as extraordinary expenses.

Why the Father Appealed

The father did not dispute that he owed child support. Instead, he appealed the order arguing that the court unfairly imputed income to him, did not adequately explain how it chose the effective date for past support, and failed to sufficiently explain why summer camp costs qualified as extraordinary expenses.

What the Court of Appeals Agreed With and What It Did Not

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that income imputation was appropriate. The evidence supported the finding that the father had control over his income, earned less by choice, and acted in bad faith to reduce his child support obligation. As a result, the appellate court upheld the child support calculation based on earning capacity rather than reported income.

However, the appellate court also found that some parts of the order lacked enough explanation. Specifically, the trial court did not clearly explain why past child support was calculated starting when it did, and the order did not fully explain why summer camp costs were treated as extraordinary expenses under the Child Support Guidelines.

Because of this, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court to make additional findings—not to change the outcome automatically, but to properly explain it.

What This Case Teaches Parents

Self-employment does not shield income from child support obligations. Parents who control their own businesses cannot avoid child support by paying themselves less, as courts will look beyond pay stubs to determine actual earning capacity.

The case also shows that courts must clearly explain their decisions. Even when a judge reaches a fair result, the law requires clear findings to support that outcome. Without proper explanation, parts of an order may be sent back for further review.

Finally, the case highlights the importance of detailed evidence. Financial records, business control, and spending patterns can significantly affect child support outcomes.

Why This Case Matters for Families Today

Keith v. Keith highlights how complex child support cases can become when income is disputed and why experienced legal representation is essential. Clear evidence and legally sound court orders help reduce delays, confusion, and unnecessary appeals. If you are involved in a child support or custody dispute—especially one involving self-employment, income disputes, or unpaid support—the lessons from Keith v. Keith are directly relevant to you.

Woodruff Family Law Group helps parents navigate complex family law matters by presenting strong evidence, addressing income manipulation issues, and ensuring court orders are properly supported by law. Whether you are seeking support, defending against an unfair claim, or considering an appeal, knowledgeable legal guidance can make all the difference.