Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated the existence of at least one ground for termination.DHHS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children, alleging the grounds of neglect contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The trial court found that grounds existed for termination pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) but dismissed the third ground alleged under section 7B-1111(a)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re L.N.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues identified by Mother's counsel in a no-merit brief as arguably supporting an appeal were meritless.Petitioner, Mother's material grandmother, filed a private action to terminate Mother's parental rights alleging grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). After a hearing, the trial court terminated that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights due to neglect and her failure to pay a reasonable portion of costs of the child's care and that it was in the best interests of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re M.C.T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's no-merit brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.Petitioner, the child's biological mother, filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7), alleging that Father had not seen the child in over two years and had not paid child support for that same period of time. The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights for abandonment. On appeal, counsel for Father 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.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that Father missed his opportunity to remedy a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1109.On appeal, Father argued that the trial court violated section 7B-1109 by holding the termination hearing more than ninety days after the Department of Social Services filed its petitions to terminate his parental rights, thus committing reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order, holding that the issue raised by Father on appeal should have been addressed by filing a petition for writ of mandamus while the termination petitions were still pending. View "In re C.R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated at least one ground for termination.The Rowan County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving her child in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to his removal. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that DSS had proven both alleged grounds for termination and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated based on neglect. View "In re B.T.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, Nancy, holding that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction concerning Nancy under the plain language of the Juvenile Code.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because neither Mother, Nancy, nor Father were residents of North Carolina and because any temporary emergency jurisdiction the trial court may have obtained had expired prior to the time the termination of parental rights petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had exclusive, original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1101. View "In re N.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated in part the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the trial court erred by determining that Father's parental rights in his child were subject to termination.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights in his child, finding that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7). Father appealed, challenging the trial court's determination that grounds for terminating his parental rights existed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order in part and vacated it in part, holding (1) the trial court's determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of abandonment and neglect by abandonment lacked sufficient support; and (2) the trial court's determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of prior neglect and the likelihood of a repetition of neglect was based on a misapplication of the applicable law. View "In re Z.J.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court properly found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6), and (7), determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of her child's cost of care, dependency, and willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that Mother failed to make reasonable progress under the circumstances to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. View "In re Q.P.W." 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 issues identified by counsel in Father's appeal were meritless.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect, willfully leaving his child in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress, and attempted murder of another child residing in the home. The trial court further determined that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed issues identified by counsel in a no-merit brief in light of the entire record and concluded that the trial court properly found that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights and that termination was in the best interests of the child. View "In re S.F.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1101.1(d) was not violated in this case.Section 7B-1101.1(d) establishes the right of a parent to appointed counsel and, in some circumstances, to a guardian ad litem (GAL) in a termination of parental rights proceeding. The statute further provides that counsel shall not be appointed to serve as the GAL and the GAL shall not act as the parent's attorney. On appeal, Mother argued that she was denied a fundamentally fair termination proceeding because her GAL examined some witnesses and presented legal arguments on her behalf, in violation of section 7B-1101.1(d). The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that because Mother was afforded both an attorney and a GAL the statute was not violated when counsel acted as Mother's attorney and the GAL assisted counsel in the presentation of the case to ensure that Mother was effectively represented. View "In re J.E.B., II" on Justia Law