Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The father of R.F. appealed a post-disposition order and judgment dismissing the juvenile dependency case and entering exit orders and sole custody of R.F. to Mother, decreasing his supervised visitation, and requiring Father’s visitation to be supervised by a professional monitor at Father’s expense. R.F. and sibling L.F. were removed from his custody based on findings of drug abuse. Father contended on appeal that he did not receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the juvenile court dismissed the proceedings and entered the exit orders. Father further argued that the errors were structural, requiring automatic reversal, and, if not structural, they constituted prejudicial reversible error. The Court of Appeal concluded there was no evidence in the record that Father received proper notice or an opportunity to be heard before the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and imposed the exit orders. In addition, the visitation order was ambiguous as to whether the court ordered visitation a minimum of once a week or every other week. The Court held these errors constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal of the order terminating dependency jurisdiction, the exit orders, and the judgment entered on January 15, 2021. View "In re R.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Parents' parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Parents stipulated to having neglected their three minor children. At disposition, the circuit court found that Petitioners' progress was insufficient to regain custody of their children. The court proceeded to terminate Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, necessitating the termination of Parents' parental rights. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

E.M.’s parental rights as to her son Josiah (born in October 2017) were terminated pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The court of appeal conditionally reversed the termination order because the record does not demonstrate that the Department of Children and Family Services fulfilled its duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901) (ICWA) or provided the information necessary to the juvenile court to make findings as to the applicability of ICWA. ICWA inquiry and determinations with respect to Father were virtually ignored until the permanency planning stage. DCFS neglected to interview four available paternal relatives in any reasonable timeframe to inquire whether Josiah has Indian ancestry. The paternal grandmother’s statement in April 2019 that she had Cherokee ancestry triggered the duty of further inquiry; DCFS did not follow up for seven months and withheld that information from the court. View "In re Josiah T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that Father's due process rights were violated.On appeal, Petitioner argued that he was not afforded proper notice of the proceedings when he was served by publication in a Boone County newspaper. The record evidence showed that the West Department of Health and Human Resources knew that Petitioner was in North Carolina and not West Virginia and that, by the time it served him by publication in a North Carolina newspaper, the circuit court had already adjudicated Petitioner. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court erred in adjudicating Petitioner's rights without proper service. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and a willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, and Mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal bounds. View "In re K.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights based on dependency and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(6) and (7). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact supported the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re A.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights based on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(1)-(2). The trial court further concluded that it would be in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re N.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that terminating Mother's parental rights was in each of the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re J.K.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in determining that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights to his child; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re I.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court entered an order concluding that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination on the basis of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) and (6) and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re I.E.M." on Justia Law