Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court remanded this matter in which the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to her son, Liam, and from the trial court's earlier permanency planning order eliminating reunification from Liam's permanent plan, holding that the trial court failed to make written findings as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.2(d)(3). The termination order terminated Mother's parental rights to Liam under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1001(a1)(1)-(2) and terminated the parental rights of Liam's father, who was not a party to this appeal. The permanency order, however, lacked findings which addressed one of the four issues contemplated by 7B-906.2(d). The Court remanded this matter to the trial court for the entry of additional findings, and held that it was currently premature for the Court to consider the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re L.R.L.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three children and terminating Father's parental rights in one of the children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders determining that Mother's parental rights in all three children and Father's parental rights in one of the children were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2), (6) and (7). The court concluded that the children's best interests would be served by the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re N.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the issues identified by Father's counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to his children on grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the children in foster care or placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's orders were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and were based on proper legal grounds. View "In re P.M." on Justia Law

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