Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights.The Department of Social Services filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights in her child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (9). The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights as alleged in the motion and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that a ground for termination existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.S.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the issues identified by Father's appellate counsel as potentially supporting an award of relief from the termination order lacked merit.In its order, the trial court determined that Father was the child's biological father, that Father's parental rights in the child were subject to termination on the basis of each of the grounds for termination alleged in the motion for termination, and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. Father appealed, and his appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err. View "In re J.L.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that there was no error on the part of the trial court.The Department of Social Services filed a motion seeking to have Mother's parental rights in her child terminated based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). The trial court determined that Mother's parental rights in her child were subject to termination on the basis of all three grounds for termination alleged in the termination motion and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for neglect pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.This was an appeal in private termination proceedings initiated by the children's paternal aunt to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children for willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of their cost of care and willful abandonment and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the termination petition and did not err in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children. View "In re M.J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2).The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his two children pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Thus, the trial court terminated Father's rights. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights; and (2) the trial court did not err in terminating Father's rights under sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that grounds for termination existed.The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on four grounds. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). The trial court entered two written orders terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, concluding that four grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that errors related to each of the four grounds for termination required reversal. View "In re Z.G.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court 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 child's removal from the home, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) based on neglect.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred by adjudicating grounds for termination of her parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor assault, holding that Defendant received a fair trial free from error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court impermissibly expressed an opinion during jury instructions concerning facts to be decided by the jury. The court of appeals found no error and upheld Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented evidence at trial that satisfied the elements of the predicate assault, and the court's instructions clarified that the jury was solely responsibly for making this determination; and (2) even if it is assumed that the trial court violated the statutory prohibitions against the expression of opinion, Defendant could not show a reasonable possibility of a different result. View "State v. Austin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the trial court committed plain error by incorrectly instructing the jury on the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder charge against Defendant, holding that Defendant could not show that the error had a probable impact on the jury's finding that she was guilty.Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The court of appeals granted Defendant a new trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, concluding that the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury on the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant could not show plain error. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor Plaintiff on its claim for breach of contract, holding that the court of appeals did not err by reversing and remanding the case back to the trial court with instructions to make findings of fact and to enter clear and specific conclusions of law based on the findings of fact.On appeal, the court of appeals held that the trial court failed to make findings of fact necessary to resolve conflicts in the evidence and support conclusions of law. The court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions to make ultimate findings of fact based on the evidence and to enter clear and specific conclusions of law based on the findings of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err. View "Carolina Mulching Co. v. Raleigh-Wilmington Investors II, LLC" on Justia Law