Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Mother's brief as arguably supporting Mother's appeal were meritless.The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6), and (7). The court further determined that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, counsel filed a no-merit brief on his client's behalf, conceding that he could muster no non-frivolous argument on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.I.S." 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 brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.The trial court concluded that a ground for termination of Father's parental rights existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(5) and that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. On appeal, counsel for Father filed a no-merit brief identifying issues that could support an appeal but that lacked merit. 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 Z.J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and further concluding that it was in the child's best interests that Father's rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred by failing to make required findings pursuant to section 7B-1110(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was no conflict in the evidence, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact on the issue of whether the child's maternal grandmother was an appropriate relative placement; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re K.A.M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to L.M.M., holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based upon neglect and willful abandonment and 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 properly terminated Father's parental rights. View "In re L.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(8) and thereafter ceasing reunification with Mother, holding that there was no error.The trial court concluded that Mother had aided, abetted, or conspired to commit voluntary manslaughter of another child and, as such, grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(8). The court further concluded that terminating Respondent's parental rights was in the child's best interests and ordered that reunification efforts with Mother cease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights and properly ceased reunification efforts. View "In re C.B.C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and a willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, and Mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal bounds. View "In re K.W." 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 or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights based on dependency and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(6) and (7). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact supported the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re A.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights based on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(1)-(2). The trial court further concluded that it would be in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re N.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that terminating Mother's parental rights was in each of the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re J.K.F." 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 hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in determining that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights to his child; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re I.P." on Justia Law