Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1).The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). Mother appealed, challenging the existence of all three grounds to terminate her parental rights. The Supreme Court addressed only Mother's arguments as to the ground of neglect under section 7B-1111(a)(1) and affirmed, holding (1) the challenged findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

In this child custody dispute between two biological parents the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals to the extent that it vacated the trial court's order regarding custody, holding that a trial court may grant full custody to one parent and deny visitation to the other parent under certain circumstances.The trial court entered an amended permanent child custody order awarding sole physical custody of the parties' children to Father and denying visitation by Mother. The court of appeals vacated the order, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Mother's ability to have visitation with her children without a determination that she was unfit to have visitation with them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court may deny visitation to a non-custodial parent, so long as the court has entered a written finding of fact that such a custody award is in the best interests of the children, without the need to have determined that the parent who has been denied visitation is deemed unfit to spend time with the children. View "Routten v. Routten" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating neglect as a ground to terminate Father's parental rights to his minor child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1).After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). The trial court further concluded that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that a ground for termination existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient in and of itself to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re J.M.J.-J" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights on the grounds of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. Further, the trial court concluded that termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court considered all of the relevant statutory criteria set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and made a reasoned determination that termination of Parents' parental rights in the children would be in the children's best interests. View "In re I.N.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the status exception to the requirement that a nonresident parent have minimum contacts with North Carolina in order to establish personal jurisdiction over him for purposes of termination of parental rights proceedings applies to termination of parental rights proceedings.After the children in this case were adjudicated as neglected the trial court acknowledged that Father was a resident of South Carolina. The trial court later terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he lacked minimum contacts with the State of North Carolina. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that due process does not require a nonresident parent to have minimum contacts with the State to establish personal jurisdiction for purposes of termination of parental rights proceedings. View "In re F.S.T.Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court on adjudication and disposition that terminated Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's second motion to continue the termination hearing in order to obtain her son's testimony; and (2) did not err in adjudicating grounds for the termination of Mother's parental rights because the evidence and the court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that Mother willfully abandoned her child for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re A.L.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that Father did not meet his burden of showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that the child was a neglected and dependent juvenile, that the mother lived in Ohio, and that the child lived with Father in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thereafter, Father's attorney informed the court that the child had not lived in North Carolina for six months before the petition was filed and that there appeared to be a valid custody order from Delaware that granted sole custody to Father. The trial court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)92). Father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the UCCJEA when it learned of the Delaware custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that North Carolina was the child's home state under the UCCJEA and the trial court had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50A-203 to modify the Delaware custody order and preside over the case. View "In re L.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds.Randolph County Department of Social Services filed motions to terminate Respondents' parental rights to their two children on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from their home. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights based on both grounds alleged in the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re C.R.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the court's findings of fact were sufficient to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and to support the trial court's discretionary determination that the children's best interests would be served by the termination of Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated grounds for terminating Mother's parental rights based on her neglect of the children and her willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal from her care. The court then concluded that it was in the best interests of both children that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in making its dispositional determination that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re C.V.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' rights to their minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Respondents' parental rights.The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Respondents' parental rights on the grounds that Respondents neglected their child, willfully left the child in foster care or placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal, and willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the child. The trial court entered an order finding all three grounds for termination and concluding that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re A.J.T." on Justia Law