Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination and concluding that it was in the best interests of Father's three children to terminate Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in all three children.Orange County Department of Social Services alleged as grounds for termination neglect and willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress. The trial court adjudicated the existence of both grounds alleged in the motions and terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Father neglected his children and that there was a likelihood of the repetition of neglect, thus supporting the termination of Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated the existence of at least one ground for termination.DHHS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children, alleging the grounds of neglect contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The trial court found that grounds existed for termination pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) but dismissed the third ground alleged under section 7B-1111(a)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re L.N.G." 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 no-merit brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.Petitioner, the child's biological mother, filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7), alleging that Father had not seen the child in over two years and had not paid child support for that same period of time. The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights for abandonment. On appeal, counsel for Father 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.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues identified by Mother's counsel in a no-merit brief as arguably supporting an appeal were meritless.Petitioner, Mother's material grandmother, filed a private action to terminate Mother's parental rights alleging grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). After a hearing, the trial court terminated that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights due to neglect and her failure to pay a reasonable portion of costs of the child's care and that it was in the best interests of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re M.C.T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that Father missed his opportunity to remedy a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1109.On appeal, Father argued that the trial court violated section 7B-1109 by holding the termination hearing more than ninety days after the Department of Social Services filed its petitions to terminate his parental rights, thus committing reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order, holding that the issue raised by Father on appeal should have been addressed by filing a petition for writ of mandamus while the termination petitions were still pending. View "In re C.R.L." 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 properly adjudicated at least one ground for termination.The Rowan County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving her child in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to his removal. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that DSS had proven both alleged grounds for termination and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated based on neglect. View "In re B.T.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication decision of the district court finding F.C. to be a child in need of care (CINC) under Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2202(d)(2), which focuses on whether the child lacks necessary care or control, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2202(d)(3), which focuses on whether the child has been abused or neglected, holding that the State proved F.C. was a CINC.On appeal, the court of appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that F.C.'s mother or stepfather inflicted emotional harm and that the State failed to establish that F.C. had been emotionally abused under section 38-2202. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 38-2202(d)(2) limits the trial court's focus only to the present circumstances at the time of the adjudication hearing; and (2) there was clear and convincing evidence to show that F.C. had been subjected to emotional abuse by her stepfather, as that term is defined under subsection (d)(3). View "In re F.C." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's dispositional orders denying mother visitation with her son and allowing the child's therapist to decide when conjoint counseling should occur. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that visitation with mother would be detrimental to the child. In this case, the record shows that mother was physically and emotionally abusive to him, hitting, kicking, or pinching him on a regular basis, frequently causing bruises; she often pretended to strike the child and laughed at him when he flinched; and his adult siblings confirmed that they had been abused as children while in mother's care and expressed concern for the child's safety. Furthermore, the child engaged in self-harming behaviors and refused all contact with mother, becoming anxious and stressed when mother made harassing phone calls to his caregiver and insisted on speaking to him.The court also concluded that mother forfeited her challenge to the order for conjoint counseling by failing to raise any objection in the juvenile court. Finally, the juvenile court's decision to order conjoint counseling when deemed appropriate by the child's therapist was not an improper delegation of judicial power. View "In re F.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights and granting permanent legal custody, holding that the court's failure to obtain written confirmation of Child's enrollment eligibility directly from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Tribe did not constitute reversible error and the termination of Father's parental rights was not an abuse of discretion.The district court terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f), failure to successfully complete his court-ordered treatment plan combined with lack of likelihood of successful change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the Department did not file a written document from the Tribe confirming Child was not an Indian child, the error was not reversible; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that continuation of the parent-child relationship would result in continued abuse or neglect and that it was in the best interest of Child to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law

Klotz’s now-deceased husband received medical services from the Hospital and incurred a $1,580 debt; he left no estate. The Hospital retained CSW to collect the debt. CSW mailed collection letters to Klotz. Klotz claims she is not liable for the debt, arguing that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691, preempts New Jersey’s common-law doctrine of necessaries (where a spouse is jointly liable for necessary expenses incurred by the other spouse) and sued CSW for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f. Preemption of the doctrine would allow Klotz to pursue her FDCPA case. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case. The ECOA does not preempt New Jersey’s doctrine of necessaries. One ECOA regulation provides that “a creditor shall not require the signature of an applicant’s spouse . . . on any credit instrument if the applicant qualifies under the creditor’s standards of creditworthiness for the amount and terms of the credit requested.” Rejecting an argument that the doctrine effectively treats her as a spousal co-signer in violation of the spousal-signature prohibition, the court reasoned that Klotz’s medical debt falls within an exemption for incidental credit and rejected an argument that CSW failed to follow the procedural requirements of the doctrine of necessaries. View "Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer and Wale LLP" on Justia Law