Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights on the ground of willful abandonment, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Father willfully abandoned the minor child and that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re C.K.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress and that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights based on neglect and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re L.G.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor daughter, holding that there was no error.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the child's cost of care. The court further concluded that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re T.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders adjudicating grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) 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 concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights in her children was in the children's best interests. View "In re N.C.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying the decree dissolving the marriage of Matthew Keiser and Krystal Keiser, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.In 2018, a decree dissolved the parties' marriage and awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their four children. The court also ordered Matthew to pay child support of $2,000 per month. Eight months later, both parties sought to modify the decree, with Father seeking a reduction in child support and Mother seeking an increase. The court found a material change in circumstances regarding custody because Krystal now had sole physical custody of two of the children and ordered Matthew to pay child support of $2,873 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Matthew's income for child support purposes and that Matthew invited any error in the court's methodology to calculate child support. View "Keiser v. Keiser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the marital dissolution decree entered by the district court in this case, holding that the court's ultimate division was reasonable and fair.In the marital dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Marcia Kauk and Randall Kauk, the district court divided the property and awarded Randall the marital homestead acreage. Marcia appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to include certain contracts or payments in the marital estate, classifying four payments as payments of marital debts in valuing marital assets, and awarding the marital acreage to Randall. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its marital asset determinations and in awarding Randall the marital acreage. View "Kauk v. Kauk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial by the district court of Mother's Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, holding that the district court did not err.The parties in this case were divorced by a judgment entered in 2012. In 2014, the court entered an order reducing Father's child support obligation. In 2019, after both of the parties' minor children had reached the age of majority, Mother filed a Rule 60(b) motion arguing that Father's earnings had increased after the 2014 child support modification order but that he had failed to provide her with his tax returns or notify her about increases in his earnings, as required by the divorce judgment. The court denied Mother's motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that it did not have the authority to modify Father's child support obligation retroactively, notwithstanding the unreported increases in his earnings. View "Marks v. Marks" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's valuation of the marital estate, inclusion of certain property in the marital estate, and determination that Kibbe Conti owed Russell Conti an $11,436 cash equalization payment, holding that the circuit court erred.This appeal concerned only the valuation and division of certain property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court's valuation of the marital residence was clearly erroneous; (2) on remand, the circuit court is further directed to apply the legal factors outlined in this opinion and enter findings specifically addressing why certain property should be considered marital or non marital; and (3) the circuit court's determination that Kibbe owed Russell an $11,436 cash equalization payment was based on clear error. View "Conti v. Conti" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Kevin and Darcy Guilles' co-guardianship of DEP, the child of Diona Palu, holding that the Guilles failed to provide an adequate record to review the issues raised on appeal.On appeal, the Guilles asserted that the district court deprived them of due process by not providing them notice that it intended to address Palu's motion to terminate the guardianship at a scheduled hearing and that the court's parental fitness finding was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record on appeal was inadequate to review either the Guilles' due process claim or the district court's parental fitness finding. View "In re Guardianship of DEP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court allocating parental rights and responsibilities concerning the parties' minor child, holding that the district court abused its discretion in requiring that Father bear the full burden of transportation with visits with the child until July 1, 2022.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was no competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that it was unreasonable for Father to drive or otherwise share in the child's transportation until July 1, 2022; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deviate from child support guidelines even given Father's transportation costs; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating to Father child contact on the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays each year. View "Emerson v. Laffan" on Justia Law