Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2).The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his two children pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Thus, the trial court terminated Father's rights. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights; and (2) the trial court did not err in terminating Father's rights under sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.This was an appeal in private termination proceedings initiated by the children's paternal aunt to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children for willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of their cost of care and willful abandonment and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the termination petition and did not err in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children. View "In re M.J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that grounds for termination existed.The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on four grounds. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). The trial court entered two written orders terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, concluding that four grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that errors related to each of the four grounds for termination required reversal. View "In re Z.G.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) based on neglect.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred by adjudicating grounds for termination of her parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children and terminating the children's two fathers' parental rights to the children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Mother's counsel identified three issues that could arguably support an appeal but stated why she believed each of those issues lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed as to Mother and both fathers, holding (1) the trial court's orders as to Mother were supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds; and (2) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate the fathers' parental rights in their respective children. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law