Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Parents' parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights in the child on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Parents to two of their children, holding that the trial court's order contained an incorrect statement of the applicable standard of proof.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights to their children. The trial court's written order included a statement that the trial court made its findings of fact "by a preponderance of the evidence," and nowhere in the order did the court announce that it was employment the "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard of proof that applies in termination of parental rights proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court mistakenly employed the incorrect standard of proof. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father to two of his juvenile children, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and determinations.On appeal, Father challenged the evidentiary basis for the trial court's adjudication of the existence of the three grounds for the termination of Father's parental rights but did not challenge the court's best interests determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact, which supported the determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6). View "In re J.I.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home while failing to make reasonable progress, and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (3) the court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on section 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re L.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect, willfully leaving the child outside the home without making reasonable progress, and failure to legitimate. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (5). The court also determined that terminating Father's rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and those findings supported the trial court's conclusions of law. View "In re M.S.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that there was no error. After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred by concluding that terminating her parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re H.R.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights. After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). On appeal, Father argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he was a nonresident and was not served with a summons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked and that Father waived his insufficient service argument. View "In re A.L.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child T.B., holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights, concluding that four grounds alleged in the termination motion existed to terminate both Parents' parental rights and that it was in T.B.'s best interests to terminate Parents' rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error to the trial court's challenged findings of fact; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect as to Mother; and (3) the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in the child was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this complex business dispute, holding that neither party successfully demonstrated a substantial right that had been affected or that an error likely occurred at the trial court.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking a declaratory judgment setting forth his rights under an Employment Agreement and Level Four Holdings Agreements. Plaintiff also alleged claims for tortious interference with a contract against Penta Mezzanine SIBC Fund I, L.P. (Penta Fund), Seth Ellis, and Level Four SBIC Holdings. The trial court (1) determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim; (2) dismissed the tortious interference with contract claim against all defendants; and (3) denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Level Four Holdings and Ellis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the superior court affirming the decision of the Board of Review for the North Carolina Department of Commerce adopting the decision of the appeals referee ruling that Frank Lennane was disqualified for unemployment benefits, holding that there was no error.At issue was whether Lennane's leaving work was attributable to his employer, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 96-14.5(a), to avoid disqualification for unemployment benefits. The lower courts affirmed the administrative decision that Lennane was disqualified for unemployment benefits because he failed to show good cause attributable to the employer for leaving. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Lennane left work for good cause, he failed to satisfy his burden to show that his leaving work was "attributable to the employer" as a matter of law. View "In re Lennane" on Justia Law