Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights in her two children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not (1) abuse its discretion by failing, sua sponte, to conduct an inquiry into whether she should be appointed a guardian ad litem to assist her during the termination hearing; (2) err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights in her children; and (3) abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re M.S.E." 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 correctly found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of at least one of the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) and that termination of her parental rights in the children would be in their best interests.In its termination order, the trial court determined that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, section 7B-1111(a)(1), and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that resulted in the children's removal to a placement outside the family home, section 7B-1111(a)(2). The court further determined that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "In re Z.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6), holding that a lack of sufficient findings compelled the court to vacate the order terminating Mother's parental rights to S.B. under section 7B-1111(a)(6).The Craven County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions alleging that Parents' three children (collectively, the older children) were neglected and dependent juveniles. The trial court adjudicated the older children as neglected and dependent. Thereafter, Mother gave birth to S.B. The trial court entered an order adjudicating S.B. a dependent juvenile because the older children were in DSS custody and Parents had made no progress toward reunification with them. Eventually, the trial court terminated Parents' parental rights to the older children pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6), and terminated Parents' parental rights to S.B. pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(2) and (6). The Supreme Court affirmed the orders terminating Parents' parental rights to the older children but vacated the order terminating Mother's parental rights to S.B., holding that the trial court did not make sufficient findings to support the termination of parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(6). View "In re M.J.R.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's permanency planning order granting guardianship of Iliana to her maternal grandmother, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as Iliana's parent.The trial court entered an order adjudicating Iliana to be a dependent juvenile and ordering her to remain int he temporary legal and physical custody of her maternal grandmother. Later, the trial court entered a permanency planning order granting guardianship of Iliana to her grandmother and ceased reunification efforts with Respondent based on his lack of progress on his case plan. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supporting its conclusion that Respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as Iliana's parent were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re I.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court adjudicating Mother's child a neglected and dependent juvenile and the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights in her child based on neglect and dependency, holding that the trial court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence supported the findings of fact, and the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that the child was a dependent juvenile; (2) the trial court did not err in ceasing reunification efforts with Mother and failing to make reunification part of the child's permanency plan; and (3) the trial court did not err by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his two minor children, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that grounds existed for the termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on the ground that he had willfully left the children in an out-of-home placement for a period of at least twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds for the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re T.M.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders 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.On appeal, Mother challenged the trial court's adjudication of the existence of grounds to terminate her parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and were sufficient to support the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re M.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their child, holding that the trial court impermissibly failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order in which it determined that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights and concluded that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new hearing on termination of Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court did not comply with 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a) and therefore could not determine whether it had reason to know that the child was an Indian child. View "In re M.L.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court concluding that the parental rights of Father were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7), holding that the trial court did not err.For his sole point on appeal, Father argued that his involuntary lack of communication with his minor child from the start of the period of his incarceration through the private termination of the parental rights hearing could not serve as the basis for the court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights due to abandonment because the evidence did not support a finding that Father's failure to contact his child was willful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence showed that Father admittedly ignored his ability to contact his daughter or her caretaker. View "In re M.S.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported at least one ground for the termination of Mother's parental rights and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of her children.After a hearing, the trial court found the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) and concluded that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined the existence of at least ground upon which to terminate Mother's parental rights; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law