Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court complied with the court of appeals' mandate on remand and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.In 2018, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to her child. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's adjudication of grounds based on neglect but reversed the court's determination that termination was in the child's best interests. Specifically, the court of appeals found that the trial court's dispositional findings of fact did not address the child's likelihood of adoption. On remand, the trial court made multiple new findings of fact regarding the child's likelihood of adoption and again concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly complied with the remand instructions from the court of appeals; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination was in the children's best interests. The trial court entered an order in which it determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). The court also concluded that it was in the children's best interests that both Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re J.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no merit in Father's argument that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to proceed against him in this matter.The trial court adjudicated the existence of three grounds for termination of Father's parental rights - neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). The court further concluded that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over him for purposes of the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father waived any objection to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. View "In re W.I.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her four minor children, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated a ground for terminating Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Mother's parental rights.The trial court concluded that there were four statutory grounds for terminating Mother's parental rights, including her failure to make reasonable progress under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the trial court's finding that Mother acted willfully in failing to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from her home pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) the trial court did not violate the statutory mandate in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) as to its determination of the best interests of each juvenile. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court denying Mother's petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, holding that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow for meaningful appellate review.Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging neglect, leaving the child in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care, dependence, and abandonment. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that Mother had failed to meet her burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the court erred in failing to enter sufficient findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law to support its dismissal of Mother's termination of parental rights petition. View "In re K.R.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating the ground of neglect and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child on the grounds of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re J.C.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights and that the trial court did not err by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children.The trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights in the children on the basis of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from the family home. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The Surpeme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's findings supported its determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights in the children would be in their best interests. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the issue identified by counsel in Father's brief as arguably supporting the appeal was meritless.Father was convicted of criminal conduct against his child. Thereafter, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of abuse and/or neglect. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). Father filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's orders. Father's counsel filed a no-merit brief on his client's behalf, stating why the one issue that could arguably support an appeal lacked merit. 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 R.A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their child, holding that the trial court correctly determined that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Father's parental rights and did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court found that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) to terminate both Respondents' parental rights and that additional grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(5), (7), and (9). The trial court also concluded that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Father's parental rights; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re N.G." 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 evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the ground that she willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from her care. See section 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.B.C." on Justia Law