Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Father to his child on the basis of neglect, holding that the findings in the court's order were insufficient to support a determination that Father had neglected the child.After the trial court entered an order adjudicating the child to be a neglected and dependent juvenile Father was ordered to comply with a case plan requiring Father to take a number of steps in order to reunify with his children. The trial court later changed the primary permanency plan to adoption with a concurrent secondary permanent plan of reunification. The court subsequently found that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis that Father had neglected the child and that such neglect was likely to recur of the child was returned to Father. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the court's ultimate determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect. View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's permanency planning order and order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights.After the trial court adjudicated the four children to be abused and neglected the trial court required Mother to take a number of steps in order to reunify with her children. After a permanent planning hearing the court found that Mother failed to comply with some of the terms of her case plan and ordered the cessation of reunification efforts. The court then terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that ceasing reunification was in the best interests of the children; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re J.H." 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 did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.The trial court found that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care, and willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirm, holding that the child's potential placement with a relative was not a factor that the trial court was required to consider or make findings about during the dispositional phase of the termination of parental rights proceeding. View "In re S.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights.In terminating Mother's parental rights the trial court concluded that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on grounds of neglect, willfully leaving her daughter in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal, and abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings fully supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re C.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their minor child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct an inquiry into Mother's competency; (2) clear, cogent and competent evidence supported the district court's findings of fact, which led to the court's conclusion of law that Father's parental rights should be terminated based upon his neglect of the child; and (3) Parents failed to show that the district court had a duty to recuse itself from hearing the termination case. View "In re Z.V.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their two minor children, holding that the district court made sufficient findings of fact, based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence, to support the court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and that termination was in the children's best interests.The district court found that the evidence established facts sufficient to support the termination of Parents' parental rights based on the failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal at the time of the termination hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated based upon her failure to make reasonable progress; and (2) the district court's orders were supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re I.G.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.The district court terminated the parental rights of both Mother and the children's father, finding that the evidence supported the termination of the parents' parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother's challenges to the court's findings of fact were unavailing; (2) the district court did not err by concluding that, under the circumstances, a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that it would be in one of the children's best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re A.R.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the findings in the trial court's order were insufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights on either of the grounds upon which the termination order rested.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in the child based on neglect and willful abandonment and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its determination that Father's parental rights to the child were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect and abandonment and that the trial court did not fail to act impartially during the termination hearing. View "In re N.D.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief lacked merit. After hearings, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal. Mother appealed. Counsel for Mother then filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, 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 J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Father's brief lacked merit.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. Father appealed. Counsel for Father then filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.B.S." on Justia Law