Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his two minor children and the permanency-planning order that eliminated reunification with Father from the children's permanent plan, holding that there was no error.At the initial permanency-planning hearing in this case, the trial court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with Mother or Father. In its permanency-planning order, however, the trial court changed the primary permanent plan to adoption and relieved the Department of Social Services from further reunification efforts with Father. Later, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that Father's contentions on appeal lacked merit. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five children, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.The Department of Social Services filed a termination of parental rights petition for all of Mother's children, alleging grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the existence of the grounds alleged in the termination petition. The court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights and ordered that her rights in all five children be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.E.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights.The Department of Social Services filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights in her child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (9). The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights as alleged in the motion and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that a ground for termination existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.S.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that there was no error on the part of the trial court.The Department of Social Services filed a motion seeking to have Mother's parental rights in her child terminated based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). The trial court determined that Mother's parental rights in her child were subject to termination on the basis of all three grounds for termination alleged in the termination motion and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for neglect pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the issues identified by Father's appellate counsel as potentially supporting an award of relief from the termination order lacked merit.In its order, the trial court determined that Father was the child's biological father, that Father's parental rights in the child were subject to termination on the basis of each of the grounds for termination alleged in the motion for termination, and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. Father appealed, and his appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err. View "In re J.L.F." on Justia Law