Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that one of the grounds outlined in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) existed to justify terminating Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)91), (2), and (9) and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's findings of fact challenged by Mother on appeal were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the facts supported the trial court's legal conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a). View "In re T.M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's and Mother's respective parental rights to their two children, holding that the findings of fact adequately supported the ground for terminating the parents' parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Father and Mother, concluding that the Yadkin County Human Services Agency had proven the existence of both of its alleged grounds for termination - neglect and failure to make reasonable progress - by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and supported its conclusion of law that the parents willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children from their home. View "In re B.J.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the necessary findings to establish any of the statutory grounds for termination alleged by Father and found by the trial court.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), (4), and (5) and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that in light of the trial court's failure to announce the standard of proof which it was applying to its findings of fact and due to Petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence to support any of the alleged ground for the termination of Father's parental rights, this Court was required to reverse the trial court's order without remand. View "In re M.R.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his son, David, holding that the legally valid findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination order did not suffice to support a conclusion that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination.David's maternal grandparents filed a petition seeking to have Father's parental rights in David terminated on the basis of the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (6), (7) and (9). The trial court entered an order determining that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, dependency, and abandonment and that it would be in David's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that Father's parental rights in David were subject to termination. View "In re D.T.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 had subject matter jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in determining the child's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to her child on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests for the parental rights of Mother to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the termination of parental rights order; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re M.R.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that Mother's parental rights in her children were subject to termination on the basis of all four grounds for termination set forth in the termination petition, that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests, and that Mother's parental rights should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings had ample record support, that the trial court's findings of fact supported its determination that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination of at least one of the grounds in the petition, and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re J.D.D.J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to neglect, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the court's findings of fact and that the court did not err in determining that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect. View "In re M.Y.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to their children and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated, holding that there was no error.Following hearings, the trial court entered orders concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights in their children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that Mother neglected the children and that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to Mother's care; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

Linsay and Kylee Gatsby married in June 2015. They later decided Kylee would attempt to conceive a child through artificial insemination, using semen donated by a mutual friend. It was undisputed that Kylee is the child’s biological mother. The birth certificate worksheet, which Kylee signed, designates Kylee as “mother,” and the word “father” on the form is crossed out and “mother” written by hand in its place to also identify Linsay as the child’s mother. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare issued a Certificate of Live Birth identifying both Kylee and Linsay as the child’s mothers. Both Kylee and Linsay shared in caregiving, but Kylee was the child’s primary caregiver. The following summer the couple had an argument. Both Linsay and Kylee had been drinking, and Kylee became drunk. Kylee shoved Linsay off a bed. Then Linsay punched Kylee, breaking her nose. The child was in the bedroom during the fight, and Linsay’s two children from a prior relationship were also in the home. Kylee was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery. Kylee had also committed an act of domestic violence years earlier. On July 5, 2017, a No Contact Order (“NCO”) was issued, which prohibited Kylee from seeing the child except at daycare. On August 29, 2017, Linsay filed for divorce. Kylee filed an Answer and Counterclaim, asserting that Linsay had “no legal claim or standing to any custody or visitation” to the minor child. The issue this appeal presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on Idaho law pertaining to artificial insemination, paternity, and parental rights in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 647 (2015). The district court affirmed the magistrate court’s ruling that Linsay had no parental rights to the child under Idaho’s common law marital presumption of paternity because she conceded that she lacked a biological relationship with the child. The district court also affirmed that Linsay had no parental rights under the Artificial Insemination Act because she did not comply with the statute’s provisions. The district court further ruled that Linsay would have had parental rights if she had filed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or adopted the child, but she did not do so. Finally, the district court affirmed that Linsay did not have third party standing to seek custody and, in the alternative, that custody or visitation would not be in the child’s best interest if Linsay did have third party standing. Accordingly, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Gatsby v. Gatsby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court entering a decree dissolving the marriage of Steve Vanderveer and Joy Vanderveer, dividing their marital estate, awarding alimony to Joy, and deciding issues of custody, child support, and parenting time, holding that the court erred in part.In 2019, Joy filed a complaint for dissolution of her marriage to Steve, with whom she shared two children. After the court entered its dissolution decree both parties moved to alter or amend the decree. The court generally overruled the motions but did modify Steve's parenting time to better accommodate his work schedule. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decree only as it pertained to the calculation of child support and alimony and otherwise affirmed, holding that the lower court's calculation was erroneous, but in all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "Vanderveer v. Vanderveer" on Justia Law