Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that Mother's parental rights in her children were subject to termination on the basis of all four grounds for termination set forth in the termination petition, that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests, and that Mother's parental rights should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings had ample record support, that the trial court's findings of fact supported its determination that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination of at least one of the grounds in the petition, and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re J.D.D.J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the orders of the trial court imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) upon Defendant, holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion when it allowed Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and invoked Rule 2 to review the SBM orders.Defendant was convicted of three counts of statutory rape of a child by an adult, two counts of statutory sex offense with a child, and three counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court ordered lifetime sex offender registration and SBM pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-208.40A(c). The court of appeals reached the merits of Defendant's SBM challenge and vacated the SBM orders without prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion by allowing Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari and invoking Rule 2 to review Defendant's challenge to the SBM orders. View "State v. Ricks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to neglect, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the court's findings of fact and that the court did not err in determining that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect. View "In re M.Y.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the trial court imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) based upon Defendant's status as an aggravated offender, holding that the order complied with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 20.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree statutory rape and first-degree statutory sexual offense. While Defendant was on probation, he sexually assaulted his minor niece. The trial court ordered Defendant to enroll in lifetime SBM and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the SBM program was constitutionally reasonable as applied to Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a search effected by the imposition of lifetime SBM upon a defendant due to his status as an aggravated offender is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the SBM program does not violate Article I, Section 20 because SMB orders do not constitute general warrants. View "State v. Hilton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to their children and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated, holding that there was no error.Following hearings, the trial court entered orders concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights in their children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that their parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that Mother neglected the children and that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to Mother's care; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that, while the trial court properly applied North Carolina law in terminating Mother's parental rights, the case is remanded for further proceedings to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered can order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's rights in her child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)(2), and (3). Mother appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) because the determination of whether there was reason to know the child was an Indian child could not be made on the record, a remand was required. View "In re A.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter but reversed the order terminating Father's parental rights as to Sue, holding that the court's challenged findings as to Father were not support by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.After a hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(4) and (7). The trial court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that her parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7); and (2) as to Father, the trial court's finding of willfulness in conclusion of law three was not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. View "In re S.C.L.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws ch. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6) and that it was in the best interests of the children that Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it eliminated reunification from the children's permanent plan in the permanency planning order; (2) the permanency planning order continued the statutorily required findings to eliminate reunification from the children's permanent plan; and (3) the trial court did not err in adjudicating the existence of ground for the termination of Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a). View "In re A.P.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five children, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.The Department of Social Services filed a termination of parental rights petition for all of Mother's children, alleging grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the existence of the grounds alleged in the termination petition. The court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights and ordered that her rights in all five children be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, 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.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his two minor children and the permanency-planning order that eliminated reunification with Father from the children's permanent plan, holding that there was no error.At the initial permanency-planning hearing in this case, the trial court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with Mother or Father. In its permanency-planning order, however, the trial court changed the primary permanent plan to adoption and relieved the Department of Social Services from further reunification efforts with Father. Later, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that Father's contentions on appeal lacked merit. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law