Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the trial court did not err in finding past neglect or in determining that there was a likelihood of future neglect and that termination was in the child's best interests.After a termination hearing, the trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect and that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children based on neglect and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). On appeal, Mother challenged this determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings provided overwhelming support for the trial court's determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, Daniel, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that Father had neglected Daniel and that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect by Father. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The trial court further concluded that it was in Daniel's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged only the trial court's determination that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if Daniel was returned to Father's care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's argument was without merit. View "In re D.I.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Rob, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to three of his children, including Rob. The court found that grounds existed for termination of Father's parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. On appeal, Father alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in its best interests determination as to Rob. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father's parental rights was in Rob's best interests. View "In re K.N.L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a probability of a repetition of neglect if the child was returned to Father's custody and that this ground was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.E.S.H." 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 commit reversible error in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (a)(2) and determined that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court based its findings of fact and conclusions of law on sufficient evidence and appropriately terminated Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) termination was in the child's best interest. View "In re D.D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Parents' parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights in the child on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father to two of his juvenile children, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and determinations.On appeal, Father challenged the evidentiary basis for the trial court's adjudication of the existence of the three grounds for the termination of Father's parental rights but did not challenge the court's best interests determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact, which supported the determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6). View "In re J.I.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Parents to two of their children, holding that the trial court's order contained an incorrect statement of the applicable standard of proof.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights to their children. The trial court's written order included a statement that the trial court made its findings of fact "by a preponderance of the evidence," and nowhere in the order did the court announce that it was employment the "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard of proof that applies in termination of parental rights proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court mistakenly employed the incorrect standard of proof. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home while failing to make reasonable progress, and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (3) the court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re L.D." on Justia Law