Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the unchallenged findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights and that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children under section 7B-1111(a)(2) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re E.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five minor children, including Connor, the oldest child, holding that the trial court's conclusion that it was in Connor's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred in its dispositional decision by determination by determining that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of Connor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court made the necessary findings of fact as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and that the court's findings supported its conclusion that termination was in Connor's best interests. View "In re C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's conclusion that one statutory ground for termination existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Father's parental rights.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the child's best interest that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re O.W.D.A." 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 the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, determining that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights due to neglect and abandonment. The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. View "In re X.P.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that a parent and child must be living apart from each other for more than twelve months prior to the filing of a motion to terminate parental rights in order for grounds for termination to exist under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).Less than eight months after the child in this case was moved to a different foster home apart from Mother, the Cabarrus County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. The trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), (3), and (6). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the child was not left in foster care outside the home for more than twelve months the termination of Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2) cannot be sustained; and (2) the trial court made insufficient findings of fact to support its conclusions of law that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights existed under sections 7B-1111(a)(3) and (6). View "In re K.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying the child support Father paid to Mother for the benefit of the parties' three minor children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing before calculating child support; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it calculated Father's income, when it did not allow a downward deviation from Father's presumptive child support, and when it did not use a shared responsibility calculation; and (3) Mother was not entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. View "Marquis v. Marquis" on Justia Law

In case No. S-20-009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying Father's motion for placement, and in case No. S-20-244, affirmed the order of adjudication of the child over Father's objection, holding that the juvenile court erred in finding Father unfit and in denying his parental preference for physical custody.The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was given temporary custody of the child and placed him in temporary foster care. After Father became aware that the child was in foster care he moved for temporary physical placement. The juvenile court denied the motion and proceeded with adjudication of the child. In case No. S-20-009, Father appealed the denial of his motion for placement. In case No. S-20-244, Father argued that his appeal in case No. S-20-009 divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to issue the adjudication. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying Father's motion for placement, holding that because Father was not given notice that his fitness or forfeiture were to be adjudicated at the hearing on his motion for placement, the juvenile court could not properly deprive him of his right to custody under the parental preference doctrine; and (2) affirmed the order of adjudication in case No. S-20-244, holding that the order of adjudication was not void. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

W.A. appealed a district court order finding P.K. the father of V.G.A. and awarding P.K. and W.A. equal decision-making responsibility, P.K. primary residential responsibility, W.A. parenting time, and ordering W.A. to pay child support. W.A. argued the district court did not follow proper procedure in adjudicating primary residential responsibility to P.K. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota, et al. v. P.K." on Justia Law

This action concerned child support for the parties’ child, J.T.G. A Nevada court granted Vickie Lenard (aka Gooss) primary residential responsibility for J.T.G. The court awarded Jeffrey Gooss parenting time and required him to pay child support at $350.00 per month, which included $50.00 in child support arrears. In the event Lenard relocated from Nevada to Colorado, Gooss’s child support obligation would be waived, and he would only bear travel expenses for himself and J.T.G. However, Lenard never relocated to Colorado, but she did relocate on multiple occasions to several other states with J.T.G. North Dakota requested a modification of child support when Lenard moved to North Dakota in 2019. Gooss challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to modify the child support originally ordered by the Nevada court. Gooss argued travel expenses were part of the parenting plan, and North Dakota lacked jurisdiction to modify the child custody arrangement issued by another state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). Gooss also challenged the calculation of child support, argued imposing child support was inequitable, and claimed a deviation for travel expenses was necessary. The district court held a hearing on the motions where it heard testimony and considered evidence and ultimately modified the child support obligation. Finding the North Dakota trial court had jurisdiction to modify the obligation, and no other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the modification. View "Gooss v. Gooss, et al." on Justia Law

Cody Muscha appealed a domestic violence protection order, arguing he was provided with the wrong date for the hearing, therefore, he was deprived of his due process right to be heard. In affirming the district court's order, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that contrary to Muscha’s argument, the requirements of procedural due process were satisfied. Notice was provided to Muscha on January 8, 2020, well in advance of the January 16 hearing. The notice was reasonably calculated to inform him of a proceeding which had the potential to adversely affect his legal interests. Muscha’s failure to recognize the discrepancy between what he was allegedly told by the deputy and what the hearing notice stated, and his failure to appear at the hearing, could not be imputed to the district court, even assuming Muscha was provided with an incorrect date. Therefore, the district court did not err by issuing the permanent domestic violence protection order. View "Krolik v. Muscha" on Justia Law