Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father in their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any issue raised by Parents' appeals.The Supreme Court affirmed the orders below, holding (1) contrary to Father's argument on appeal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Father's counsel to withdraw from representing him at the termination hearing; and (2) contrary to Mother's argument on appeal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that terminating Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re T.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2)-(3), and (7), holding that the trial court's findings of fact supporting its termination of Father's parental rights were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his child and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights in his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(3). View "In re J.E.E.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (5) and that termination was in the child's best interests, holding that Father did not carry his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Father's sole argument - raised for the first time on appeal - was that his appointed trial counsel was ineffective, and therefore, the Supreme Court should reverse the portion of the trial court's order concluding that the ground set forth in section 7B-1111(a)(5) existed to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. View "In re B.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights in their two daughters, Elyse and Elizabeth, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its best interests determination as to Elyse and Elizabeth. On appeal, the parents argued that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the parents' parental rights. Mother only challenged the court's best interests determination as to Elyse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Elyse's best interests and that termination of Father's parental rights was in Elizabeth's best interests. View "In re E.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that there were grounds pursuant too N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7) to terminate Father's parental rights as to the child.In terminating Father's parental rights to his child, the trial court concluded that five grounds existed for termination and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that unchallenged findings of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence in the record, supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully abandoned the child, and the ground of willful abandonment was sufficient to support the trial court's order of termination. View "In re I.J.W." on Justia Law