Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court eliminating reunification as a permanent plan and terminating Mother's parental rights in her two children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children due to neglect and concluding 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 (1) did not err by failing to grant Mother a continuance of a permanency planning review hearing; (2) properly concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (3) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re H.A.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination and concluding that it was in the best interests of Father's three children to terminate Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in all three children.Orange County Department of Social Services alleged as grounds for termination neglect and willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress. The trial court adjudicated the existence of both grounds alleged in the motions and terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Father neglected his children and that there was a likelihood of the repetition of neglect, thus supporting the termination of Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re J.S." on Justia Law