court erred by failing to make findings regarding whether plaintiff, in order to deprive defendant of contact with the children, willfully misled defendant during their discussions concerning her intention to later join defendant with the children in Okinawa. Evidence of a parent’s ability or inability to cooperate with the other parent to promote their child’s welfare is relevant in a custody determination and material to determining the best interests of the child. Cf. Phelps v. Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 446 S.E.2d 17 (1994) (quoting as relevant to a custody determination a finding of fact regarding one parent’s inability to cooperate in a reasonable fashion with the other parent to promote their child’s best interests); Woncik v. Woncik, 82 N.C. App. 244, 249, 346 S.E.2d 277, 280 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s order reflects that it
holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody holding interference with visitation of the noncustodial parent   that negatively impacts    the welfare of the child can constitute a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a change of custody holding that where interference with visitation becomes so pervasive as to harm the childs close relationship with the noncustodial parent there can be a conclusion drawn that the actions of the custodial parent show a disregard for the best interests of the child warranting a change of custody