Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect, willfully leaving the child outside the home without making reasonable progress, and failure to legitimate. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (5). The court also determined that terminating Father's rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and those findings supported the trial court's conclusions of law. View "In re M.S.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights. After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). On appeal, Father argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he was a nonresident and was not served with a summons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked and that Father waived his insufficient service argument. View "In re A.L.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child T.B., holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights, concluding that four grounds alleged in the termination motion existed to terminate both Parents' parental rights and that it was in T.B.'s best interests to terminate Parents' rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error to the trial court's challenged findings of fact; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect as to Mother; and (3) the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in the child was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the trial court finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support an adjudication of dependency but dismissing a claim of neglect, holding that the court of appeals' analysis showed improper deference to the trial court's conclusion of law.The Cumberland County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition alleging Kelly to be a neglected and dependent juvenile. The trial court adjudicated Kelly to be dependent but, without explanation, dismissed the claim of neglect. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claim of neglect. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part, holding that the court of appeals failed to conduct a proper de novo review of the issue of neglect. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that Mother was not entitled to her allegations of error.The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights in Galena, alleging that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)91), (2) and (6). The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to each of the grounds DSS had alleged and concluded that it was in Galena's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) was supported by the unchallenged findings of fact. View "In re G.D.C.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, Carrie, and the trial court's earlier permanency-planning order that eliminated reunification from Carrie's permanent plan, holding that there was no reversible error.On appeal, Mother did not challenge the trial court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights or that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Mother's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) did not reversibly err in failing to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act because there was no reason for the court to know that Carrier was an Indian child under 25 C.F.R. 23.107(c); and (3) did not abuse its discretion by eliminating Mother's visitation with Carrie in a permanency-planning order. View "In re C.C.G." on Justia Law