Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court erred in finding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (6) and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children.The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. On appeal, Mother challenged two of the trial court's findings of fact as being unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) portions of the trial court's findings were not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re K.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights in his children on the basis of a determination that his parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the removal of the children from the home. The court further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding the existence of at least one ground for terminating Father's parental rights and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. View "In re K.P.-S.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed orders entered by the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered orders terminating Mother's parental rights in the children on the basis of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The court further determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court's findings of fact was harmless; and (2) the trial court did not err by determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for dependency. View "In re A.L.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an adjudication order determining that parents' parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the children's removal from the family home. The court further concluded that termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) determining that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect; and (2) finding that Mother’s parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this termination of parental rights case to the trial court, holding that while the trial court correctly applied North Carolina law in terminating Mother's parental rights, the case should be remanded for further proceedings intended to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963.The trial court found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an inquiry into the issue of whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for Mother; (2) the trial court did not err in determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests; and (3) this case should be remanded for further proceedings concerning whether the notice of ICWA were complied with and whether the child was an Indian child for purposes of ICWA. View "In re N.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their two minor children, Justin and Billy, holding that the trial court did not err.The trial court entered an order adjudicating the existence of grounds to terminate Parents' parental rights for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from the home, and dependency. The court then concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the two children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights for neglect; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in Billy's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re B.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's orders terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.As to Mother and Father, the trial court concluded that four statutory grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6), and that it was in the children's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Father appealed from the termination orders. Father's counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. After reviewing the issues identified by counsel in the no-merit brief the Supreme Court held that the trial court's orders were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and were based on proper legal grounds. View "In re S.D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their minor child, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.The trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights in the child on grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (3). The court further determined that it was in the child's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Parents each filed timely notice of appeal. Counsel for Parents jointly filed a no-merit brief on behalf of their clients. The Supreme Court reviewed the issues identified by counsel and 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.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, Alyson, age nine, and Adam, age seventeen, holding that remand was required to reconsider Adam's age, reweigh his request to keep Parents' parental rights intact, and to reevaluate guardianship for Adam as an alternative to termination of parental rights.The trial court determined grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights based on the grounds alleged in the petitions and concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Parents appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that termination of their rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the order terminating Parents' parental rights to Adam and remanded to the trial court to reconsider guardianship as a dispositional alternative and to give proper weight to Adam's age, his lack of consent to adoption, and his bond with his parents. The Court affirmed the trial court's orders as to Alyson, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' parental rights was in Alyson's best interests. View "In re A.K.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the dispositional portion of the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child and remanded for entry of a new dispositional order, holding that the trial court misapprehended the legal effects of the termination.The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's adjudication of grounds under section 7B-1111(a)(2) but vacated the dispositional portion of the trial court's order, holding that the trial court's decision to order both that Father's parental rights be terminated and that Father be allowed to continue co-parenting the child suggested a misapprehension of the legal effects attendant to terminating parental rights. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new dispositional determination. View "In re Z.O.G.-I" on Justia Law