Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's and Mother's respective parental rights to their two children, holding that the findings of fact adequately supported the ground for terminating the parents' parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Father and Mother, concluding that the Yadkin County Human Services Agency had proven the existence of both of its alleged grounds for termination - neglect and failure to make reasonable progress - by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and supported its conclusion of law that the parents willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children from their home. View "In re B.J.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the necessary findings to establish any of the statutory grounds for termination alleged by Father and found by the trial court.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), (4), and (5) and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that in light of the trial court's failure to announce the standard of proof which it was applying to its findings of fact and due to Petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence to support any of the alleged ground for the termination of Father's parental rights, this Court was required to reverse the trial court's order without remand. View "In re M.R.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in determining the child's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to her child on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests for the parental rights of Mother to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the termination of parental rights order; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re M.R.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his son, David, holding that the legally valid findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination order did not suffice to support a conclusion that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination.David's maternal grandparents filed a petition seeking to have Father's parental rights in David terminated on the basis of the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (6), (7) and (9). The trial court entered an order determining that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, dependency, and abandonment and that it would be in David's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination. View "In re D.T.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that Mother's parental rights in her children were subject to termination on the basis of all four grounds for termination set forth in the termination petition, that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests, and that Mother's parental rights should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings had ample record support, that the trial court's findings of fact supported its determination that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination of at least one of the grounds in the petition, and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re J.D.D.J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to neglect, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the court's findings of fact and that the court did not err in determining that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect. View "In re M.Y.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to their children and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated, holding that there was no error.Following hearings, the trial court entered orders concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights in their children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that Mother neglected the children and that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to Mother's care; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that, while the trial court properly applied North Carolina law in terminating Mother's parental rights, the case is remanded for further proceedings to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered can order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's rights in her child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)(2), and (3). Mother appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) because the determination of whether there was reason to know the child was an Indian child could not be made on the record, a remand was required. View "In re A.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws ch. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6) and that it was in the best interests of the children that Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it eliminated reunification from the children's permanent plan in the permanency planning order; (2) the permanency planning order continued the statutorily required findings to eliminate reunification from the children's permanent plan; and (3) the trial court did not err in adjudicating the existence of ground for the termination of Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a). View "In re A.P.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter but reversed the order terminating Father's parental rights as to Sue, holding that the court's challenged findings as to Father were not support by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.After a hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(4) and (7). The trial court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that her parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7); and (2) as to Father, the trial court's finding of willfulness in conclusion of law three was not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. View "In re S.C.L.R." on Justia Law