Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court remanded this matter in which the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to her son, Liam, and from the trial court's earlier permanency planning order eliminating reunification from Liam's permanent plan, holding that the trial court failed to make written findings as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.2(d)(3). The termination order terminated Mother's parental rights to Liam under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1001(a1)(1)-(2) and terminated the parental rights of Liam's father, who was not a party to this appeal. The permanency order, however, lacked findings which addressed one of the four issues contemplated by 7B-906.2(d). The Court remanded this matter to the trial court for the entry of additional findings, and held that it was currently premature for the Court to consider the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re L.R.L.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three children and terminating Father's parental rights in one of the children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders determining that Mother's parental rights in all three children and Father's parental rights in one of the children were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2), (6) and (7). The court concluded that the children's best interests would be served by the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re N.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.After a three-day hearing, the trial court determined that Mother's parental rights in her children, Daniel and Sara, were subject to termination on the grounds that she had willfully left them in an out-of-home placement for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to their removal from her home. The trial court concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in Daniel's best interests but that the same would not be true with respect to Sara. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by concluding that her parental rights in Daniel were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not suffice to support the court's determination that Mother's parental rights in the children were subject to termination under section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re D.A.A.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the issues identified by Father's counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to his children on grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the children in foster care or placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's orders were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and were based on proper legal grounds. View "In re P.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children, holding that the issues identified by Mother's counsel in a no-merit brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. 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 G.D.H." on Justia Law

In this private termination of parental rights action the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioners permanent physical and legal custody of the children. Petitioners then filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. 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 A.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and affirmed the order terminating Father's parental rights to Son, holding that, as to Daughter, the trial court acted in excess of the statutory limits on its subject matter jurisdiction set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1003(b).The trial court entered separate orders terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and Son. The court concluded grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Daughter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), and (7), and that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Son pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and (7). The Supreme Court (1) reversed the termination order as to Daughter, holding that the termination order was void; and (2) affirmed the termination order as to Son, holding that the order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the county court purporting to discharge the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) and appoint the ward's parents as successor coguardians over their objection, holding that the parents had standing to appeal and that the Public Guardianship Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-4101 to 30-4118, did not permit the discharge of the OPG.Nicholas was an adult with severe mental illness who was in need of a guardian. His parents served as his court-appointed coguardians until they petitioned to have the OPG appointed as Nicholas's guardian pursuant to the Act. The county court appointed the OPG as Nicholas's guardian, but OPG later filed a motion for discharge, asserting that Nicholas's parents should be named successor guardians. After a hearing, the court granted the OPG's motion for discharge and directed that Nicholas's parents be appointed his successor coguardians. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the OPG failed to prove that its services were no longer necessary, and therefore, the county court erred in discharging the OPG under section 30-4117. View "In re Guardianship of Nicholas H." on Justia Law

David Maher appealed the judgment of dissolution of his marriage with Laurie Strawn. He primarily contended there was insufficient evidence to impute income to him and to step down the spousal support he received. In determining Laurie’s ability to pay David support, the court took into account numerous circumstances, including that Laurie was spending about $3,000 per month for their adult son’s college expenses. The question this case posed was whether the court could properly consider that expense in determining her ability to pay spousal support. The trial court determined that the "better reasoned cases" indicate that the court has discretion to consider an adult child’s college expenses like any other expenditure of discretionary income. "The ultimate question in determining ability to pay is whether the expense is reasonable and will result in a just and equitable award of spousal support." The main argument to the contrary was that supporting an adult child reduces the supporting spouse’s available funds to pay spousal support. "The supported spouse, so the argument goes, is in effect being compelled to pay adult child support, which the law prohibits." The Court of Appeal found that both In re Marriage of Epstein 24 Cal.3d 76 (1979) and section Family Code 4320 compelled the conclusion that a trial court may appropriately consider a supporting spouse’s payment of adult children’s college expenses in determining ability to pay spousal support. With no reversible error, the Court affirmed the trial court's support order. View "Marriage of Maher and Strawn" on Justia Law