Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's planning order in this case and remanding the case for additional findings, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Father waived his constitutional argument.After a hearing, the trial court granted guardianship of Father's two children, Jimmy and Lola, to the maternal grandparents. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's permanency planning order, holding that the trial court erred by failing to make necessary findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.1(n) but that Father had waived his argument that the trial court erred by granting guardianship without concluding beforehand that Father was an unfit parent or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional right to parent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's unpreserved constitutional arguments were waived on appeal. View "In re J.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her son, Scott, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Scott's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights to Scott under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's dispositional findings were supported by competent evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in Scott's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re S.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, Lucy and Joseph, holding that there was no error.Petitioners, court-appointed custodians of the two juveniles, filed petition to terminate Parents' parental rights on the grounds of willful abandonment. The trial court eventually entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to Lucy and Joseph, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion to continue. View "In re L.A.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child Becky, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights due to willful abandonment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis that he willfully abandoned Becky for six consecutive months and further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in Becky's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re B.E.V.B." 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 did not err.The Department of Social Services petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving him in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal. The trial court adjudicated that both grounds for termination existed and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re B.R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's denial of Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing undermined the fairness of that hearing and that the trial court prejudicially erred.On the day of the adjudicatory termination hearing, Father was unable to appear due to a lockdown at his prison due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court denied Father's motion to continue the hearing and later terminated his parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that by denying Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court violated Father's rights to due process and undermined the fundamental fairness of that hearing. View "In re C.A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this termination of parental rights matter for further proceedings, holding that the findings of fact supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Father's parental rights in his daughter Annie were subject to termination.Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights based on the fact that he failed some of the drug screens he admitted to between 2018 and 2020 and failed to submit to others. The trial court, however, found Father to have completed a required substance abuse assessment, completed twenty hours of substance abuse treatment, attended visits with his daughter, and completed a parenting program, among other things. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights in his daughter. At issue on appeal was whether the findings of fact that were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its termination decision. View "In re A.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part a permanency planning order awarding legal guardianship of Mother's two minor children to Grandmother, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a hearing, the trial court awarded guardianship of the two children to Grandmother, concluding that placement of the children with Mother would be contrary to their health, safety, welfare and best interest. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the best interest of the child supported an award of guardianship to Grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's factual findings sufficed to support its conclusion that Mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally-protected right to parent her children; and (2) the trial court did not err in applying the best interest of the child standard in awarding guardianship of the children to Grandmother. View "In re B.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court's unchallenged findings did not fully support its adjudication of neglect as grounds for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect and terminating Father's parental rights on this ground. View "In re K.Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children based on neglect and failure to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the children from the home, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.N.D." on Justia Law