Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children on the ground of willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father's parental rights.Mother filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights in both children on the grounds of willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care and willful abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on willful abandonment and that termination was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully abandoned the children. View "In re J.D.C.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter, holding that the issues raised by Mother and her counsel were meritless.The district court adjudicated grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), concluding that Mother had previously rejected the child and that there remained a high probability of the repetition of neglect. The court further concluded that a terminating Mother's rights was in the child's best interests. Mother appealed from the termination order, and her counsel filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination order contained sufficient findings of fact to establish the existence of a statutory ground of neglect for terminating Mother's parental rights and that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion by concluding that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re J.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's rights based on an adjudication under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) that he willfully failed to pay child support in the six months prior to the filing of the termination-of-parental-rights petition.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on four separate grounds. The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred in adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the child's cost of care despite his physical and financial ability to do so. View "In re J.A.E.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court eliminating reunification from the permanent plan for Mother's daughter and terminating Mother's parental rights in the child, holding that that district court judge did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the judge did not commit prejudicial error by misstating the applicable standard of proof, eliminating reunification as a component of the permanent plan for the child, or reducing the amount of visitation that Mother was entitled to have with the child in the permanency planning order; and (2) the judge did not err by finding that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination based upon her willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the child's removal from the family home. View "In re L.E.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his children, holding that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and that the post termination proceedings did not cure the errors.On appeal, Father asked the Supreme Court to vacate each of the judgments and orders entered in this case because the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Act before terminating his parental rights. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case, holding that where the trial court had reason to know that an Indian child might be involved and that where any notices the trial court sent failed to include all of the necessary information required by statute, the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights must be reversed. View "In re E.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three children in this private termination action, holding that the trial court considered the factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a), and the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights.Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in weighing the factors and concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re K.L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's ruling denying Plaintiff's motions for relief from the order vacating the registration of her foreign support order, holding that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidence Plaintiff's affidavit under N.C. Gen. Stat. 52C-3-315(b) because the statute's plain terms do not require notarization.Plaintiff initiated an action in Geneva to establish paternity and child support of her two children. The Swiss court entered judgment against Defendant on both counts. The Guilford County Clerk of Court registered the Swiss support order for enforcement. The trial court, however, subsequently vacated the registration of the foreign support order and dismissed the action, finding that no evidence was provided that Defendant had been provided with proper notice of the Swiss proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion for relief and attempted to introduce two affidavits and a transcript. The trial court excluded the first affidavit because it was not notarized and ultimately denied Plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff's affidavit was admissible because it was executed under penalty of perjury as allowed by section 52C-3-315(b). View "Gyger v. Clement" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her four minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that there were grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the children's cost of care, and dependency. The court then concluded that terminating the parental rights of Mother was in the best interests of the children. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that her parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding it was in the children's best interests to terminate her parental rights. View "In re E.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor son, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.In terminating Mother's parental rights, the trial court found that a likelihood of future neglect existed due to Mother's history of domestic violence and abusive partners, her questionable new relationship, her failure to meaningfully engage in therapy, and her failure to exercise control over her household environment. The trial court also concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of dependency and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Mother's parental rights should be terminated on the basis of neglect and on the grounds of dependency. View "In re K.L.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact that were supported by clear and convincing evidence to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis of neglect.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and determining that it was in the child's best interests that Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights; and (2) as to Mother's appeal, the trial court's order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.O.D." on Justia Law