Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.After a three-day hearing, the trial court determined that Mother's parental rights in her children, Daniel and Sara, were subject to termination on the grounds that she had willfully left them in an out-of-home placement for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to their removal from her home. The trial court concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in Daniel's best interests but that the same would not be true with respect to Sara. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by concluding that her parental rights in Daniel were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not suffice to support the court's determination that Mother's parental rights in the children were subject to termination under section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re D.A.A.R." 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 the issues identified by Mother's counsel in a no-merit brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. 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 G.D.H." on Justia Law

In this private termination of parental rights action the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioners permanent physical and legal custody of the children. Petitioners then filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. 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 A.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and affirmed the order terminating Father's parental rights to Son, holding that, as to Daughter, the trial court acted in excess of the statutory limits on its subject matter jurisdiction set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1003(b).The trial court entered separate orders terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and Son. The court concluded grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Daughter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), and (7), and that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Son pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and (7). The Supreme Court (1) reversed the termination order as to Daughter, holding that the termination order was void; and (2) affirmed the termination order as to Son, holding that the order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their two minor children and Mother's parental rights to a daughter from a previous relationship, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the parents' parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court found the existence of three grounds to terminate the parental rights of the parents and that termination of both parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly adjudicated at least one ground for termination; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re G.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father to his daughter, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supported the court's conclusion to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to his children pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7) and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that those findings were sufficient to support the court's conclusion that Father willfully abandoned his daughter pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re I.R.M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her five minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court's findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; (2) the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2); and (3) where Mother did not challenge the court's determination that termination was in the children's best interests, the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights in her five children. View "In re A.M.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on willful abandonment and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court's findings of fact supported its ultimately finding and conclusion that Father willfully abandoned the children, and therefore, the court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7); and (2) the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re G.G.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of the mother of the four minor children in this case and the father of the two youngest children, holding that the order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights due to neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress and Father's parental rights due to neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's case. Both parents appealed. Counsel for the parents filed no-merit briefs on their clients' behalf explaining why the issues arguably supporting an appeal lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re R.D.M." on Justia Law