Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part a permanency planning order of the trial court eliminating reunification as a permanent plan, holding that remand was required.Father appealed from an order of the trial court ceasing reunification efforts with his two songs, the permanency planning order eliminating reunification as a permanent plan, and subsequent orders terminating his parental rights. The Supreme Court remanded the case in part, holding (1) because the permanency planning order lacked findings that addressed one of the four issues contemplated N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.2(d) remand was necessary for entry of additional findings; (2) Father's claim of error concerning the permanency planning order was properly resolved by remand and did not necessitate vacating or reversing the order, and therefore, it was premature for the Supreme Court to consider the trial court's orders terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re C.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the trial court's adjudication of neglect was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.The Robeson County Department of Social Services filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to her three children under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition and found that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction and did not err in determining the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights on the basis of neglect. View "In re J.D.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing Mother's petition seeking to have the parental rights of Father to the parties' three children terminated, holding that the trial court did not err in dismissing Mother's petition.Mother filed a termination petition alleging that Father's parental rights in the children were subject to termination on the grounds of willful abandonment set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that Mother had failed to establish that Father had willfully abandoned the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Father had not willfully abandoned the juveniles. View "In re N.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Parents to their minor children, holding that the arguments Parents raised on appeal were meritless.After a hearing over the span of seven dates, the trial court entered an order determining that the parental rights of both Mother and Father were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court then concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of three of the four children at issue and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of all four children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below. View "In re B.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.The Cabarrus County Department of Human Services filed a motion alleging that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination based upon neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care while outside her custody, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination on the basis of each of the grounds alleged in the termination motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. View "In re R.L.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their twin sons, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6), and that it was in the children's best interests for Parents' parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Parents' parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(3) and that the termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re J.C.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children, holding that the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Father's parental rights.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that three grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and failure to pay for a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juveniles. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children and an order terminating Father's parental rights to one of those children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and (6) and the existence of grounds to terminate Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (6), and (7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an inquiry into Mother's competency; (2) the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law supported its adjudication of grounds to terminate Father's parental rights for willful abandonment; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the child's best interests to terminate both parents' parental rights. View "In re J.A.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that a substitute judge may not make new factual findings or conclusions of law under Rule 52 and Rule 63 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.After the district court terminated Father's parental rights to his child the Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded the case for additional findings of fact. On remand, the matter was assigned to a substitute judge, who issued a new order finding that the child was neglected and terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for a new hearing, holding that the substitute judge lacked authority to make new, dispositive findings of fact under Rule 52. View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that Defendant's search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.Following the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress Defendant pleaded guilty to various drug offenses. The court of appeals vacated the convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact; (2) Defendant was lawfully detained pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) and State v. Williams, 490 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. 1997); and (3) the frisk of Defendant was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Tripp" on Justia Law