STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ILED DISTRICT COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF CABARRUS 18 CVD 3436 MN FEB LT P 2 38 nn MATTHEW D. BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, vs. ORDER AMY PALACIOS (formerly . BLEDSOE), acus) Defendant. THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard and being heard by the undersigned District Court Judge presiding over the December 2, 2021 Civil Non-jury Session of the Cabarrus County District Court, upon the Plaintiff"s Motion in the Cause for Modification of Child Custody filed February 11, 2021, the Defendant’s Motion in the Cause to Modify Child Custody and for attomey fees filed March 12, 2021 and the Defendant’s Motion to Modify Custody filed on July 23, 2021. Each party's motions filed in October 2018 were withdrawn in open court on December 2, 2021. Plaintiff was present and represented by Donna H. Johnson. Defendant was present and represented herself. Based upon its consideration of the pleadings filed, the greater weight of the credible evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Cabarrus County, North Carolina and has been a resident for more than six months next preceding the filing of these motions. 2. Defendant is a citizen and resident of Cabarrus County, North Carolina and has been a resident for more than six months next preceding the filing of these motions. 3. All parties received adequate notice of the hearing and are properly before the Court, 4, ‘The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation in this matter. 5. The parties were lawfully married to one another on May 31, 2003, separated from one another on November 23, 2008, and were subsequently divorced on January 10, 2010. 1Both parties have remarried since that divorce, and the Defendant has two minor children from a later marriage. 6. The parties are the parents of four minor children: Sutton Bledsoe, date of birth December 4, 2004; Julia Bledsoe, date of birth March 19, 2006; Addison Bledsoe, date of birth October 31, 2007; and Blake Bledsoe, date of birth February 6, 2009. 7. North Carolina is the home state of the minor children within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. §50A-201(@)(1) and North Carolina has continuing exclusive juriadiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §50A-202. 8. These parties litigated previous and numerous motions regarding child custody, child support, contempt, and other related domestic issues in Mecklenburg County from 2008 through October 2018. 11. Each party filed custody modification motions in the Mecklenburg County file before it was transferred. Plaintiff's Motion was filed on July 25, 2018 and Defendant’s Motion was filed on April 25, 2018. These Motions were subsequently shown as filed in the Cabarrus County matter on October 30, 2018. Each party agreed in open Court that these motions were rendered moot by the more recent filings in 2021 or contained substantial similar allegations to the 2021 motions filed by the respective parties. Those 2018 motions ‘were withdrawn in open court on December 2, 2021. 12. On October 2. 2018, Judge Culler granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue and the Cabarrus County for hearing. 14. On February 11, 2021, based upon the Plaintiff's Motion, the Honorable Steven A Grossman issued an Order of Temporary Custody Preserving the Status Quo, granting 2temporary custody of the minor child Sutton and Addison to Plaintiff. This Order also set a hearing on Temporary Custody on February 17, 2021 15. Following the hearing on February 17, 2021, this Court entered an Order on Temporary Custody on March 17, 2021. ‘The Findings of Fact are incorporated herein by reference. 16. On March 12, 2021, by and through counsel, the Defendant filed a Motion in the Cause to Modify Child Custody 17.On April 9, 2021, by and through counsel, the Defendant filed a Motion to Reinstate Consent Order Resolving Child Custody. This motion referred to Judge Culler’s 2015 Order as a “Consent Order,” however that is not reflected in the file. 18. The Motion filed April 9, 2021 was heard on August 26, 2021 and denied by an Order entered August 27, 2021 19. On April 30, 2021, the Court entered an Order Appointing a Guardian ad Litem for the minor children. The Defendant has repeatedly objected that she did not agree to the appointment of the Guardian for the children despite the Court's Order. 20. The Guardian ad Litem for the minor children interviewed the Defendant on June 30, 2021 and the Plaintiff on July 13, 2021. 21. On July 23, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion for Emergency Custody on a pro se basis. This Motion contained inappropriate language regarding Defendant's opinion on the court process, including conspiracy theories and personal attacks on lawyers in the community. This Motion was denied on an ex parte basis. 22. The Guardian ad Litem for the minor children interviewed the minor children Sutton and Addison on August 3, 2021. 23. On August 6, 2021, the Defendant filed additional Motions on a pro se basis, including for Emergency Custody, a request for sanctions, recusal of an attorney involved in another custody proceeding and her objection to a Parenting Coordinator in a different custody proceeding. 24. The Defendant’s counsel was released by a Consent Order to Withdraw, presented to the Court for signature and entry of order on August 12, 2021 25. The Motions filed August 6, 2021 was heard on August 26, 2021 and dismissed by an Order entered August 27, 2021. 26. The Guardian ad Litem interviewed the minor children Julia and Blake on August 20, 2021.27.On August 26, 2021, the Court directed the exchange of discovery materials between the partes to be completed vefore September 10, 2021 wher the parties were to engage in 8 pre-trial conference in open cour: 98, During the August 26, 2021 hearing; tno Court adaressed the Defendant's behavior in court, towards members of the legal community and Defendant's repeated filing of slanderous, extraneous, and unnecessary materials. As result, the Court entered an order of Injunction on August 27, 2021- 99, On August 30, 2021, the Plaintiff fled @ Motion in the Cause for Temporary Custody referring specifically to the parties’ minor children Julia and Blake, ‘Temporary custody of the minor children was granted t0 Plaintiff and a hearing wes set for September 10,202) by Temporary Custody Order filed August 30, 2021 40, Following the hearing on September 10, 2021. the Court entered an Order of Temporary Custody on September 16, 2021. This Order ranted custody of Julia and Blake to the Plaintiff, and specifically directed that all four minor children involved in this ligation were allowed to attend and participate in the Defendant's wedding on September 18, 2021 ‘The Court further directed that all four minor children be enrolled in therapy and attend supervised visitation with the Defendant 431. The parties completed the pre-trial hearing and the matter was set for trial in October 2021 Due to unforeseen events that were not in the control of either party, the matter was continued for hearing on December 2, 2021 530, This matter was heard before the undersigned Judge on December 2, 2021 on the remaining open motions filed February 11, 2021, March 12, 2021, and July 23, 2021. 43, Since the entry of the 2015 Order, there has been & gubstantial change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor children in that: a. Since the entry ofthe previous Order. the minor children have aged approximately six years and have begun to engage in different extracurricular activities and developed different interests than they held when the previous Order was entered. bh. Since the entry of the previous Order, the Defendant's behavior towards the minor children, especially towards Sutton and Addison, has become erratic, combative and at times violent.i, In February 2020, the Defendant was driving the minor children home from abeach trip. After an argument with Sutton, the Defendant struck Sutton in front of the other minor children. The Defendant explained that Sutton ‘wanted to visit a friend and the Defendant refused to drive her to the friend's house. The Defendant denied hitting Sutton on this or any other occasion when angry with Sutton, ii, The Defendant became inebriated during a trip with the children to Charleston, South Carolina in October 2020 in the presence of Sutton and Addison. The Defendant began dancing with strangers at a restaurant and left them feeling uncomfortable while the teenagers were caring for the younger children, iii, On February 6, 2021, Sutton overheard the Defendant telling Rafael that the children “all had demons” and “needed to go to church.” On February 6, 2021, the Defendant had an argument with Sutton during a trip to the barn where several of the children have horse-riding lessons. This argument was witnessed by Cynthia “Boo” Matthews, who works with the horses and children at the barn. v. On February 7, 2021, the Defendant had a verbal and physical altercation with Sutton. Sutton and Addison were uncomfortable attending church where face masks were not required during the COVID-19 pandemic and voiced their concerns to the Defendant. This disagreement with Defendant continued all weekend and escalated on Sunday morning, Sutton got in the shower and Addison was also in the bathroom getting ready for church. The Defendant called a friend who was video-chatting with her while Sutton was in the shower nude to pray over Sutton to convince her to attend church, Defendant pushed Addison out of the bathroom and began pulling on the shower curtain while Sutton was trying to close the curtain. Then Defendant struck Sutton with her fist in the shoulder, chest and face several times. Addison saw the physical altercation from the bedroom while it occurred. vi, Following the altercation on February 7, 2021, the Defendant took the other children to church. Sutton and Addison left Defendant’s house and went toVii aneighbor’s house to call the Plaintiff to pick them up. They could not call the Plaintiff before they left the house because the Defendant had taken away their cell phones as punishment. The police were called at some point during the dav. The children have remained in the Plaintiff's custody since that date. The Plaintiff observed marks on Sutton’s chest and face following the altercation with Defendant and Sutton, Defendant maintained there were no marks on Sutton’s torso and that any marks on her face were due to a “horse bite” that occurred during the children’s horseback riding session on Saturday, February 6, 2021 c. Since the entry of the previous Order, the minor children have been exposed to domestic violence while residing with Defendant. i. iii, Brad Urban and the Defendant had a physical altercation in front of the minor children in April 2017 which resulted in Mr. Urban’s arrest for assault on a female. In December 2017, Defendant allowed Mr. Urban to move back home with her and the minor Bledsoe children and Urban children, These actions resulted in the motions filed in 2018 in the Mecklenburg County file, which was then transferred to Cabarrus County in 2018. The Defendant separated from Brad Urban in December 2019 following a separate incident of domestic violence. The Defendant had two younger children with Brad Urban (the Urban children). The minor children involved in this litigation are strongly bonded to the younger Urban children and worry about their safety and well-being, The Defendant has remarried while this litigation was ongoing to a man named Rafael Palacios who the minor children do not know well or feei comfortable being around. d. Since the entry of the previous Order, the Defendant’s behavior in Court, during communications with officers of the court has become erratic. Although at times the Defendant conducts herself in a calm and respectful manner, she escalates her behavior quickly and strikes out verbally at those around her without warning. The Defendant, rather than presenting evidence or arguments to the Court regarding herappropriate parenting, presented repetitive negative allegations regarding the Plaintiff, the court system, attorneys, and her ex-husband that are not in the children’s best interests. Her behavior towards the minor children and court personnel appears to be intended to manipulate the children’s emotions and to undermine the court process in general ii, ‘This behavior and these allegations cause the Court great concern, as the Defendant does not appear to be able to control her behavior, even when it is harmful to the children and despite specific warnings from the Court and an Order of Injunction The Defendant believes that all the children’s negative behaviors are the result of Plaintiff's influence on the children. She believes he encourages the children to be disrespectful to her, spoils the children and does not require them to do chores at his home, and filed this litigation in order to punish her for becoming engaged to her current husband in February 2021. ‘There is no evidence to support any of these allegations. iv, Defendant repeatedly contacted the children’s Guardian ad litem attorney despite being ordered to cease doing so in August 2021 by the Order of Injunction, Many of these calls involved accusing the Guardian of kidnapping her children, plotting with the CCDHS attorney to harass her, or threats of reporting the Guardian, opposing counsel or the attomey for CCDHS to the North Carolina State Bar. In addition to the calls, the Defendant also frequently emailed opposing counsel, the CCDHS attorney and the Guardian attorney with various threats, allegations of unethical behaviors and conspiracies and other nonsensical, incoherent communications such as YouTube links.v. Defendant repeatedly makes similar allegations against Plaintiff in front of the children. In addition, when Defendant repeats those allegations to friends or people at church, it makes the minor children extremely uncomfortable. The children do not feel that behavior is fair to the Plaintiff. evidence vii, Prior to February 7, 2021, the Defendant took away the minor children’s cell phones as discipline and will not allow them to contact the Plaintiff when they are in the Defendant's home on a routine basis. viii, The Defendant believes that if she does not allow the children to have their way, specifically with Sutton, that the children will “attack” her and the Plaintiff will help them “attack” her, indicating she regards herself as an adversary to her own children. ix. The Defendant's behavior regarding the minor children throughout this litigation appeared strongly to be geared to manipulate the children regarding the court proceeding, to entice the children to spend time with her by offering rewards in the form of activities like horseback riding, to alienate the children from the Plaintiff and to blame all her personal or parenting difficulties on the Plaintiff, the court system and specific attorneys. This type of emotional manipulation is not in the children’s best interests. x. All the children report that if they hesitate doing something the Defendant requests, she will accuse them of being possessed by a demon or otherwise finding a religious reason for their behavior. The minor children have consistently stated that they love their mother but fear her temper tantrums or rages that come on suddenly. The Deténdant’s mood can change rapidly from reasonable or “normal” to angry and bizarre over small things without warning,xi, xii. xiii xiv, xv. In June 2021, there was a Cabarrus County Department of Human investigation into the welfare of the minor children based on an anonymous report. This was closed as unsubstantiated in late July 2021 Following Blake and Julia's interview with the Guardian ad Litem, the Defendant discussed the interview and asked what was said, but indicated the discussion was initiated by the minor children. During Blake and Julia’s GAL interview, the Defendant went to the Plaintiff's home while Sutton and Addison were home alone. She admitted that she saw the Plaintiff’s vehicle with Blake and Julia riding as passengers but denies that she knew the other children were alone in Plaintiff's house. Following Sutton’s testimony on February 17, 2021 outlining the Defendant's behavior on February 7, 2021, the Defendant sent Sutton a message indicating she could not have any further contact with the younger children as a result of “siding” with the Plaintiff during that hearing. Following the August 26, 2021 court hearing, the Defendant sent a group text message including the minor children that stated she would terminate her parental rights and allow Sutton and Addison to “loose” the relationship with Defendant and the Urban children if they signed and agreed she should terminate her parental rights. She testified on September 10, 2021 that she wanted to give the children the power to choose which parent they wanted to live. . Defendant has indicated she is in counseling and has had a mental evaluation. Defendant further testified that she had no mental health diagnoses, although she ‘was seeing a counselor for domestic violence issues. Defendant has not provided a mental health evaluation to the Court, a diagnosis of any mental health issue for ongoing treatment, nor provided any information regarding the evaluation or diagnosis to opposing counsel despite a request for the same during cross- examination and the discovery process. ‘The Defendant is a Nurse Practitioner and has been an excellent employee during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her co-workers, neighbors and friends from church haveindjgated they have no concer with her ability to parent, but only, Cynthia “Boo” fatthewshas witnessed the minor children being disrespectful to the Defendant. «Defendant's sinter resided with Defendant and assisted her with childeare asa livecin nanny. All of the children reported @ positive relationship with Defendant's sister. However, Defendant reported at the trial in this matter that her sister no longer lived wither as of October 2021 fi, The Defendant appears to be a model co-worker, and she controls her tehavior and acts rationally when at work or im public with other adults. ‘However, she is not able to control her ‘pehavior in the courtroom, with court staff of, frequently, tn the presence of the minor children unless another adult is with her. Sutton and Addison have resided primarily with the Plintiffsince the Court entered sts Order on February 11,2021. ‘The asinor children Julia and Blake have resided primarily with the Plaintiff since ‘entry of the Temporary Order on September 16, p02, Bach of them visited with the Defendant st Families First in supervised visits and attended the Defendant's wedding in September 2021, The Court ordered some unsupervised visits between the children and the Defendant during the holidays in 2021. : bh. The minor children Sutton and Adfison are engaged in mental health counseling at the court's direction following ‘ng February 17,2021 hearing, The minor children Julia and Blake were ordered to aitend therary following the September 10, 2021 hearing however, it does not appear that they Were enjolled in counseling at the time of the hearing in this matter +. All of the children make good grades, are active in school and extracurricular activities and appear 10 be Rapey and thriving under the modified visitation schedule entered on a temporary ‘basis by the orders of the Court on March 17,2021 and September 16,37. This isa high conflict case with excessive litigation. The parties are unable to communicate effectively in a positive manner regarding the well-being of the minor children. Accordingly, the Court is ordering joint legal custody with each parent having final decision-making authority over certain issues. Defendant shall have final decision-making authority over medical and dental matters, Plaintiff shall have final decision-making, authority over educational and extracurricular matters, as well as selecting mental health counselors for the minor children, The Court finds this division of legal custody to be in the best interests of the minor children. 38. It is in the best interests of the minor children that the visitations with Defendant be increased on an incremental basis so that the minor children may participate in counseling sessions to allow them to process their emotions in a healthy and positive way, and adjust to the different households between the Plaintiff and Defendant in the most appropriate way. 39. This modified custody arrangement is in the best interests of the minor children. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The parties are properly before the Court and the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this litigation and personal jurisdiction over the parties. 2. North Carolina is the home state of the minor children, WW3. Since the entry of the July 15, 2015 Order Modifying Custody & Visitation, there has been ‘a material and substantial change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the minor children Sutton Bledsoe, date of birth December 4, 2004; Julia Bledsoe, date of birth March 19, 2006; Addison Bledsoe, date of birth October 31, 2007; and Blake Bledsoe, date of birth February 6, 2009; and that a modification of the 2015 Order is in the best interests of the minor children. 4, The Plaintiff is a fit and proper person to exercise primary physical custody of the minor children. The Defendant is conditionally fit and proper to have secondary physical custody of the minor children, It is in the best interests of the minor children that the visitations with Defendant be increased on an incremental basis. 5. Bach party is. fit and proper person to share legal custody of the minor children as outlined further below. Whenever possible, the parties shall discuss and agree on decisions made on behalf of or for the benefit of the minor children. If the parents are unable to agree, Defendant shall have final decision-making authority over medical and dental matters and Plaintiff shall have final decision-making authority over educational and extracurricular matters, as well as selecting mental health counselors for the minor children. 6. This Order is in the best interest of the minor children. 7. The findings of fact are incorporated herein to the extent that they represent conclusions of law. 8. The terms of this Order are fair, reasonable, adequate and necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion in the Cause for Modification of Child Custody filed February 11, 2021 and the Defendant's Motion in the Cause to Modify Child Custody filed March 12, 2021 are granted. 2. The Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed March 12, 2021 and Motion to Modify Custody filed July 23, 2021 are denied. 3. Each party’s motion filed in 2018 transferred from Mecklenburg County were withdrawn in open court on December 2, 2021 4. The Defendant shall obtain a Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatric Mental Health Assessment. She is to provide the written report stemming from this assessment to the 12Plaintiff's counsel no later than May 1, 2022. The Defendant is to follow all recommended treatment, education or further assessments deemed appropriate by the mental health professional who completes the assessment. . The Plaintiff shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor children. The Plaintiff shall enjoy joint legal custody of the minor children and shall have final decision- making authority over educational and extracurricular matters, as well as selecting mental health counselors for the minor children, . The Defendant shall enjoy secondary physical custody or visitation with the minor children, The Defendant shall enjoy joint legal custody of the minor children and shall have final decision-making authority over medical and dental matters. ~, Defendant’s visitation with the minor children Sutton and Addison may be on a schedule consistent with the other minor children listed below in paragraphs 8 and 9, or at other times as Sutton or Addison and the Defendant agree, and with the advice of their mental health counselor. . Defendant may enjoy secondary physical custody or visitation with the minor children Julia and Blake on the schedule outlined below: a ijoy six ho end with the minor i .m, me continuing through the last 4. Any other visitation to which the parties agree in writing via email or the Our Family Wizard program/application, B9. The parties may enjoy holiday or special occasion vis tation with the minor children Julia and Blake that supersedes regular visitation outlined in paragraph 8 above as follows: a ‘Thanksgiving: The minor children shall be with the Defendant in even- numbered years from release from school until 6 p.m. before the minor children retum to school. In odd-numbered years, the minor children shall be with the Plaintiff from release from school until return to school for Thanksgiving break. Christmas/Winter Break: The minor children shall be with the Defendant from 1 pam, on Christmas Day until 6 p.m. the evening before school resumes in even-numbered years. The minor children shall be with the Plaintiff from release from school until | p.m. on Christmas Day in even-numbered years. This schedule shall reverse in odd-numbered years, with Defendant having the children from release from school until 1 p.m. on Christmas Day Spring Break: The minor children shall be with the Defendant in odd-numbered years for spring break from school from the release from school until 6 p.m. the Sunday before the children return to school. The children shall spend spring break with the Plaintiff in even-numbered years. Mother's Day/Father’s Day: The minor children shall spend Mother's Day and Father’s Day with the honored parent from 9 a m. until 7 p.m. regardless of the underlying schedule for the summer or school year. Beginning with the minor children’s release from school in June 2023, the minor children shall enjoy visitation with each parent on a “week or/week off” basis for the duration of summer break from school, for a week beginning on the Sunday following release from schoo] at 6 p.m., and alternating between the parents thereafter until the Sunday before school resumes at 6 p.m. The parties may discuss and agree to any additional special occasion visitation time by consent in writing via email or the Our Family Wizard program/application. 10, Defendant is responsible for transporting the minor children for visitation exchanges. The parties shall meet at a public location agreed upon in writing. If the parties cannot agree upon a different location, they should exchange the minor children at the Concord, 14ML. 12, 13. 14. Fire Station located near the intersection of I-85 and Poplar Tent Road. Each party should notify the other of any disruption to the visitation schedule (ie. late due to traffic) as soon as possible. If'a party is picking up the children for visitation from the release from school, the exchange shall take place at the children’s school. Each party shall cooperate in ensuring that the other has access to the information regarding the children’s education, medical care, and any other matter of significance involving the minor children. Neither party will do anything to restrict the other party's access to such information. Each party shall notify the other of any health issues involving the children (i.e. illness, injury, doctor visits, medication schedules). In the event of an emergency involving the children, each party has an affirmative duty to report such emergency to the other party as soon as possible, practicable and safe to do so. To assist the parties in providing information to one another, each party shall enroll and utilize the application “Our Family Wizard” or a similar communication program within 15 days of the entry of this Order. The parties shall share all relevant information conceming the health, welfare, education, discipline, dietary habits and study habits of the minor children, including but not limited to report cards, behavioral problems, medical conditions, medication, extracurricular activities and events, and information related to the children’s recitals, practices, tournaments, games, or special events, Neither party shall disparage the other parent to the minor children or allow other People to do so in the children’s presence. Neither party shall discuss current or future court proceedings or litigation with the minor children, The parties shall make every effort to avoid any confrontation with the other party in the presence of the minor children. Any discussions between the parties regarding the minor children shall be made directly between the parties and not within the presence or hearing of the minor children. If the parties are both in attendance at one of the children’s activities or special events, they shall participate amicably and shall not disrupt the children’s activities or interfere with the children’s participation in those activities or events, The parties shall enroll all four minor children in mental health counseling to assist the ‘minor children to process their emotions in a healthy and positive way, and to adjust to the different households between the Plaintiff and Defendant in the most appropriate 15way. The parties shall keep the minor children enrolled in counseling and assist in the children’s therapy as long as the counselor/therapist recommends. 15. Neither party shall use or permit the use of any profane, obscene, or indecent language in the presence of the minor children or speak derogatorily or unkindly about the other party, their relatives, acquaintances, or friends in the presence of the minor children, nor subject the children to the same. Neither of the parties shall stalk, fnarass, intimidate, threaten or assault the children, another party or relative, acquaintance or friend of the other party. Neither party shall question the children about the activities, of the other party or use the children to spy on the other party's household. 16, Each party shall keep the other party informed of his or her telephone number, physical address, email address, and place of employment, and notify the other party of any change within 48 hours of that change. 17. Each party is entitled to telephone contact with the minor children when they are in the other party’s custody. The minor children shall have unlimited access to initiate contact with each parent by telephone, email, or any other reasonable means of communication. The parties shall not take away cell phones as punishment of the minor children to allow for a means to contact the other parent. Phone calls between the other parent and the children shall be made at reasonable hours before 8 p.m., be of reasonable frequency and shall last for a reasonable amount of time. The children shall he allowed to speak to the other parent and receive letters, packages and gifts from both parents at all times. 18. Neither party shall schedule extracurricular, religious or sports activities during the other parent’s parenting time without express written permission to do so. During their parenting time, each party shall make sure the children attend their activities absent extenuating circumstances such as illness, etc 19. Neither party shall use alcohol to excess or illegal drugs while the minor children are present nor shall either party allow anyoue else to use alcohol to excess or illegal drugs while in the presence of the minor children. 20. A violation of this Order shall subject the party in violation thereof to the contempt powers of the Court, 21, Invisdiction over this cause is retained for the entry of such further orders as are reasonable and necessary. 1622. The remaining issues pending in this file (filed November 30, 2021) shall be heard on March 1, 2022 at 9:30 a.m, in Courtroom #4 of the Cabarrus County Courthouse. This the // th day of February 2022. The Honorablt Christy District Court Judge Presiding CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the Order (MCUS) in this matter was served on all parties as follows: Dena Jonson ATRUE COPY Counsel for Plaintiff (OLERK OF SUPERIOR COL Post Office Box 1827 CABARRUS COUNTY Concord, NC 28026 ei ee Ms, Amy Palacios fate Coes 3840 Grovesnor Street Harrisburg, NC 28075 This the! |__ day of February 2022. 7