Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (a)(2) and determined that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court based its findings of fact and conclusions of law on sufficient evidence and appropriately terminated Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) termination was in the child's best interest. View "In re D.D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Parents' parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights in the child on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father to two of his juvenile children, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and determinations.On appeal, Father challenged the evidentiary basis for the trial court's adjudication of the existence of the three grounds for the termination of Father's parental rights but did not challenge the court's best interests determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact, which supported the determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6). View "In re J.I.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Parents to two of their children, holding that the trial court's order contained an incorrect statement of the applicable standard of proof.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights to their children. The trial court's written order included a statement that the trial court made its findings of fact "by a preponderance of the evidence," and nowhere in the order did the court announce that it was employment the "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard of proof that applies in termination of parental rights proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court mistakenly employed the incorrect standard of proof. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home while failing to make reasonable progress, and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (3) the court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re L.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect, willfully leaving the child outside the home without making reasonable progress, and failure to legitimate. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (5). The court also determined that terminating Father's rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and those findings supported the trial court's conclusions of law. View "In re M.S.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights. After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). On appeal, Father argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he was a nonresident and was not served with a summons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked and that Father waived his insufficient service argument. View "In re A.L.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child T.B., holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights, concluding that four grounds alleged in the termination motion existed to terminate both Parents' parental rights and that it was in T.B.'s best interests to terminate Parents' rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error to the trial court's challenged findings of fact; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect as to Mother; and (3) the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in the child was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court further modified a hybrid traditional and rehabilitative alimony award that the court of appeals modified in this case, holding that this Court hereby adopts transitional alimony as another tool to do equity in calculating spousal support.In this divorce action, the district court entered a decree dissolving the parties' seventeen-year marriage, ordering shared custody and physical care of the children, and diving the marital property. On appeal, the court of appeals increased the spousal support award and recalculated Husband child support obligation. On appeal, Husband argued that the increase in the spousal support award and duration was excessive and unnecessary. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision as modified, holding that the alimony is modified as to the amount and duration and that this modification required a recalculation of child support. View "In re Marriage of Pazhoor" on Justia Law

Joseph Schrodt appealed the judgment of divorce from Katie Schrodt. Joseph raised numerous issues including the district court’s denial of his request for a continuance, the court’s valuation of certain marital assets, the court’s calculation of child support, the court’s parenting plan, and the court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Katie. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schrodt v. Schrodt, et al." on Justia Law