Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal. Mother appealed, and counsel for Mother 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 order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re Z.O.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and committing a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to another child of the parent. After Mother gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for Mother filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was based on clear and convincing evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination of parental rights. View "In re T.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court declining to terminate Father's parental rights to his children based on its determination that termination would not be in the best interests of the children, holding that the trial court's ruling was within its discretion.Bethany Christian Services filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to his two children on the grounds of neglect, failure too legitimate, and dependency. The court subsequently entered an order declaring Father to be the children's father. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order concluding that although a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights, termination was not in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was not in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re A.U.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter C.M.C., holding that the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders which Mother sought to challenge before this Court.After a hearing, the trial court announced that the parental rights of Mother should be terminated. Adjudication and disposition orders signed by Judge Monica Leslie, rather than the trial court, were filed. Judge Leslie subsequently vacated the adjudication and dispositional orders that she had signed, and the trial court entered a separate dispositional order in which it determined that the termination of Mother's rights was in the child's best interests. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by entering the challenged termination orders on the grounds that Judge Leslie lacked the authority to vacate the earlier termination orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Leslie did not err by vacating the initial set of termination orders that she signed in this case, and the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders that Mother sought to challenge before the Supreme Court. View "In re C.M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, C.B.C., on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Father's parental rights.After Father was convicted of multiple felonies and began serving his sentence Petitioners filed a second petition to terminate Father's parental rights. After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights, finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment and that termination was in C.B.C.'s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re C.B.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights based on the grounds of willful abandonment and willful failure to pay child support, holding that sufficient evidence supported the termination of Respondent's parental rights and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.Petitioner sought to terminate Respondent's parental rights to the parties' children on the grounds of willful failure to pay child support and willful abandonment. After a hearing, the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights to the children on the ground of willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights to the children and in concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re E.H.P" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Respondent's appeal from the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights, holding that Rule 3.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates an independent review on appeal of the issues contained in a "no-merit" brief filed in appeal from an order terminating a respondent's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. On appeal, Respondent's attorney filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d). The court of appeals dismissed the appeal because "[n]o issues have been argued or preserved for review in accordance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights, holding that the text of Rule 3.1(d) plainly contemplates appellate review of the issues contained in a no-merit brief, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in failing to conduct an independent review of the issues set out in the no-merit brief filed by Respondent's counsel. View "In re L.E.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to Troy, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(9) was sufficient to support termination of Mother's parental rights and that the trial court made sufficient findings in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Troy's best interest.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because the court did not receive sufficient evidence or make adequate findings of fact. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Mother's parental rights and that the trial court made sufficient findings in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Troy's best interest. View "In re T.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the determination of the trial court that the parental rights of Mother in her daughter were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), holding that the unchallenged findings of fact adequately supported the court's conclusion that Mother had failed to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal.In reversing the trial court's order, the court of appeals determined that a number of the trial court's findings of fact lacked sufficient evidentiary support and did not support the court's conclusion that Mother had failed to correct the domestic violence-related problems that had led to the child's removal from Mother's home. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the facts supported the trial court's conclusion that Mother failed to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that resulted in her daughter's removal from the family home. View "In re B.O.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's distributive award in an equitable distribution action that contemplated the use of a spouse's separate property, holding that the trial court lacked statutory authority to order disposition of Plaintiff's separate property.Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in district court seeking equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, alimony, and post-separation support. The trial court entered an equitable distribution order and denied Plaintiff's request for an award of alimony. Regarding the property distribution, the trial court determined that Plaintiff must pay Defendant a distributive award and that Plaintiff must liquidate her separate property to pay the distributive award. The court of appeals sanctioned the trial court's distribution of Plaintiff's separate property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court's order directing Plaintiff to liquidate her separate property to pay down the distributive award because it effectively distributed Plaintiff's separate property; and (2) discretionary review of whether N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-20 grants corporations standing to seek reimbursement for debts was improvidently granted. View "Crowell v. Crowell" on Justia Law